History Books

I was very pleased with this book. The information in it is easy to read and apply to papers as needed. Thanks for your help!

Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association is a very good book for people who want to publish and need to know the nuts and bolts. It uses simple language. Its non-linearity is its main strength becuase it directs the reader to the specific topic needed. It is a good academic investment.

I cannot rate this product due to the fact that that it was never sent to me. I ordered two books on the same day and received one of them a few days later. I really need to be rating the seller of the book, since they ripped me off.

The book was just as advertised and in excellent condition, arriving much sooner than expected.

The Manual of the American Psychological Association has been around in successive editions for many years and continues to set the standard for the ways in which psychologists write and communicate their discipline. Publication manuals can be necessary and there is no doubt that when the APA first established the Manual there was a need, in the era of print technology with type setting and proof editing, for precise rules on tabular settings, figure descriptions etc. The problem for today is that the continued need for such rules to guide the printer has become enshrined with a style of writing and reporting that dates from the same era. As has been pointed out several times elsewhere, the Manual was first written at the time when American psychology was dominated by the Behaviorist paradigm and by methodological operationalism. Behaviorism eschewed certain kinds of psychological states and operationalism specified only particular ways in which processes and methods could be described. Both of these paradigms have been long overturned and psychology is no longer confined by such restraints. But still the style is used to restrict the ways that young, incoming members of the profession and science are taught to write and therefore, oftentimes, to think about their subject matter and the people that they are studying. In America such restraints may only be imposed at the level of graduate study and the student will have reserves of thought and style that resist such intrusions. In other parts of the world, such restrictions are imposed from the very beginning of the undergraduate degree. Students therefore learn to think about people and operations in a way that narrows the descriptions and the thought processes that are applied to the issues and problems. If the APA was the only outlet with such restrictions, these effects would be a cause for regret but not despair. The APA style, however, has been adopted by virtually all of psychological publishing houses, so there are few escape routes. It is not a matter simply of putting the references in the correct form; it is about thinking about subject matter in severely restricted ways.
It is probably too late to hope for any change in the ways in which the APA Manual is used and further procreated. But it is a case study, worthy of serious study, of how the past, lived and recorded with good intentions, can continue to stifle the present and the future. The APA Manual has become functionally autonomous, affecting thinking but with little or no continuity with the past. To a degree it is pathological in form and, worse than that, it is a pathogen that is severely infectious.

The work created by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons is one of those rarities that transcend genres. Rorschach is the main character and his personality makes one wonder if he's the good, the bad, or the ugly. Is he judge, jury, and executioner or is he the outlaw he seems to hunt? So if Rorschach is the "hero" who plays the villain? Ah, that is something you'll have to discover for yourself...I will tell you the "villain" has almost the same personality traits as Rorschach. As for the graphics....simply splendid. This is a book you'll kick yourself if pass on it.

Editor of the highly recommended novel: Fates by Georgiou, Tino Fates (2nd Edition)

Every once in a while a miracle occurs... and the miracle of comics is WATCHMEN! This tale is perfectly spun from the superheroes of old. Watchmen shows what graphic novels can achieve moving it from child's play into a piece of art. Words cannot describe the complexity, brilliance, or power that this novel brings. No one has ever achieved what Alan Moore has in this novel. He redefined the medium, he brought it to its knees. Inspiring and moving comics to intellectual pieces of talent. This masterwork is brilliant think of it as the Godfather of comics. Really nothing can describe it just read and be awestruck...

This is the story behind the movie. It is a deeper insight - you can be a spoiler for all your friends. If you have any interest at all you have to read this!

This is a fantastic graphic novel. Do yourself a favor and immerse your mind into this book before the film version comes out next March. I looked around for it and I found it cheapest on Amazon.

Whats ironic about re-reading this book now is the fact that the world is where it is. Poverty, homelessness, lack of tolerance, invasions, corrupt people and government, the human heart and our need to be loved and understood. Of course these aren't new things, BUT Watchmen does it in such a brilliant way. Can't wait to see if the movie does it justice.

This is a great book that shows how a combination of commitment, focus, and dedication can bring about remarkable changes for others. A must read for those interested in making a difference in the lives of others!

Three Cups of Tea: One Man's Mission to Promote Peace . . . One School at a Time

Greg Mortenson has set a bar so high that it is beyond the reach of most of us. However, as a female Geography teacher, for many years I have explained to my students every semester that one of the biggest problems in the world today is the lack of educational opportunities for females. Thank you, Greg, for helping to alleviate that problem. Also, as a Geography teacher, I particularly appreciated the incredible descriptions of places I will never be able to visit. Thank you David Relin. This is a fabulous book.

I spend a lot of time reading books, magazine and newspaper articles, and watching TV programs that pertain to work being done by nonprofits and NGOS. I spent part of my career in the nonprofit world and have volunteered in my community for as long as I can remember as my mother is also very committed to service.

I talk to friends about their nonprofit work and my company gives generously to a whole host of these organizations. I have a carefully chosen few organizations that I donate to and if friends send me a notice that they are running a race or taking part in some other way to raise money for a charity they believe in, I'm good for a donation. Lately I've been feeling the need to do more and I'm not sure if that means joining a board, lending my business expertise on a pro-bono basis, or committing a great amount of volunteer time. Maybe it means starting my own nonprofit.

Because of my interest in education, especially that of girls in developing nations, I picked up a copy of Three Cups of Tea by Greg Mortenson and David Oliver Relin. The book charts the course that Greg Mortenson took to building schools first in the village of Korphe in Pakistan, then all over that country, and most recently in Afghanistan. I was so moved by Greg's story that about 50 pages through the book I went to the website to make a donation. He is compelling, engaging, passionate, and he's in the field for all the right reasons.

... for anyone who wishes to plant the seed of Democracy and ensure the security of our own.

Inspiring, funny, unbelievable, made me cry, and made me want to be a better person. I wish I could say something more to do justice to this incredible story. Tell all of your friends and READ THIS BOOK!!

This audio book was very interesting and revealing. We had to listen twice and still didn't catch everything we should have. Too bad the main-stream media doesn't report on half of the facts presented in this book. If more people were aware of Obama's dealings, I'm sure we wouldn't be worried about the possibility of having a Muslem lead our great Christian nation.

All citizens of this great country shoud read this, and be informed. Also Obama Unmasked. This is one of the most important elections in recent history. Be informed, be prepared. When you read these books, you will know who is or isn't a racist. These publications are based on factual references. See who is the real power behind Obama.

Simply put, this book provides the solid, documented research that the media has neglected in favor of the tingling in their legs. Since he is a student of Saul Alinsky (who taught deception...concealment of real purpose) and other radicals, we cannot take what Obama says at face value - his proven track record is the only thing by which we can effectively measure him. Obama is doing his best to cover his tracks, which itself speaks volumes.

Obama's intended policies, those that he's shared with us...if we can believe him...will lead to a marked lowering of our standard of living, and to a terrible loss of freedom in our society. Freedom, once given up, will be unbelievable difficult to regain.

Short answer: read this book. The news media are only showing what they want. Get the rest of the picture, and be an informed voter...not a deluded one.

the case agsinst obama.

The book allows you to look at both sides of a candidate. The media did not give you information that voters should have to make an informed decision. It was very Bias in their coverage. They held back much information about the candidate. they performed as if they were part of his campaign staff.

A must read before you vote! Obama is not fit to be President of the USA.

Michael Pollan comes through with another excellent book to trace food from the ground to the dinner table. I appreciated his conversational style and narrative that started from step 1 and ended with a dinner with his friends and family. Pollan muddies the waters about how we should be eating - sustainable, not, organic, not, "natural", not - it is certainly complex to figure out what we should be purchasing and eating, and what we should not.

I did appreciate that Pollan calls out a number of shady practices in the organic food world. Free range chicken is not always as described, industrial egg production isn't sustainable, and you probably would not be interested in eating beef from Wal-Mart after finishing the book.

It does not, however, push people to go vegetarian, organic, vegan, or anything outside of our omnivore heritage. In fact, Mr. Pollan goes through a number of excellent arguments about why to eat meat, or not eat meat, depending on the reader's perception. An excellent book that kept my attention straight through.

Pollan presents this discussion in an easy-to-read format and gives the reader a well-rounded story. I highly recommend this book and hope that more agriculture schools and nutrition classes use it in the classroom.

This book contains a clear accounting of the farming of corn and the use
of corn to make corn syrup and other corn products used in human foods,
and the problem with the destruction of farming soil and pollution of
the environment with fertilizers used to increase the yield per acre of
corn. The Author does not address the problem with adding corn by-products to our dog and cat foods, among which are the basic indigestibility of corn in these animals, and the problem of pet illness that results from the feeding of pet foods with corn products in them.
This is a great book. To learn more about pet nutrition please
go to www.amiespetcuisine.com, and see HOW TO COOK FOR YOUR PET.

I am going to write a review here that I am sure that will get pummeled and give me nothing but nasty comments and a billion negative votes. So let me say some good things first. Pollan is a gifted writer, is engaging and entertaining to read. The book and it's premises though are a sure recipe for global disaster. Pollan is more even-handed and fair than most of the books trumpeting the perils of industrial farming, but let me please try to explain why these arguments are dangerously flawed. I will try and give and intelligent and considered response and those of you who must blast back at me, I only ask that your comments are equally considered.

Many people are scared of industrial farming, the inputs that are used, and the genetic engineering that is advancing farm science. Most of these fears are based upon "frankenscience" designed delilberately to be scary. Scary and sensational sells books, magazines, and newsprint. The "organic" label has been profitable to the tune of billions of dollars and will continue to be so. There is so much momentum in the press about the dangers of industrial farming and too much money to be made for it to stop. On the other hand industrial farming is not going to stop either. We have to eat.

In our society the best way to control how people think is to control the questions posed. When industrial farming is discussed it is presumed to be bad because it is "industrial" and there are chemicals involved. Ergo we have the slew of reporting biased against industrial farming. All of these books may even be right and everything they maintain may prove to be true. I doubt it, but even if it so we have a problem that is ignored by the media when experts pontificate about agricultural issues. The question isn't whether industrial farming is good or bad. The real question is, "there are over 6 billion people on the planet, and the population will grow to be over 9 billion. How are we going to feed everybody?"

The prescription of this book, more local farming and more organic food, is simply a recipe for billions of deaths through starvation. Many people hate it when facts don't fit their preconceived notions or agendas. In fact, I never seen a political party that doesn't suffer from this flaw. My response is neither political nor do I have an agenda. Although you may not listen to what I have to say, I feel compelled to try and point out the simple holes in the logic of this book. You may not thank me for it, but at least I will have tried. This book is irrational because it refuses to face the real question of how to feed everyone. A rationalist is a person who plays the hand of cards they are dealt, not the hand of cards they wish they had. They solutions offered in this book amount to playing the cards we wish to have rather than the ones we do have.

Here are the cards. Land can either be good farmland, tolerable farmland, ranch land, or non-arable. All of the good farmland and tolerable farmland in the world is already being farmed. There are no reserves of land in this world that would make good farmland. You can try to farm ranch ground, or poor farm ground, and you can pursue slash and burn farming in rainforests, but the problem is that the land will only be productive for a few years. After that it is uneconomical to farm it. By that I mean you will put more calories into the farming than you can withdraw. Moreover this land then is subject to erosion and other environmental problems. The simple math is this: there are roughly one billion arable hectares in the world and there are just over 6 billion people. Those are the cards we hold. Can we feed everyone? Yes, for now.

Here are the problems with local production and organic food: local production is fabulous when you can do it, but many people do not live where food is produced. Think of New York City. Obviously NYC cannot grow all the food it needs for its population. They need to import food. This is not a new problem. Ancient Rome was entirely dependent upon food produced in Egypt and other provinces. When people choose to live where the food isn't, there is a cost associated with getting the food to those people. There always has been. However, you also can't wish those people to move to where the food is, because their housing would take up all the farmground. So local markets theoretically work great for certain groups, but it is simply not rational to suggest local production as a solution to world food shortages. There is also a reason why the world looks like it does with densely populated non-agricultural areas and thinly populated agricultural ones. People can't live on the good farmground. Plants have to live there. Therefore, when you really think about it, suggesting local production as a solution is just a preconceived bias that in practical application would cause a lot of people to starve. Sure, some people get to live near the food, and it would be more efficient if they would eat the food produced right next to them rather than food that is shipped halfway round the world. Getting people to do so would make the system slightly more efficient, but it is not going to be the solution. It would be a bandaid on a sucking chest wound. Moreover, it wouldn't work anyway....people don't want it. They like eating bananas from central America, grapes from Chile, lamb from New Zealand, cashews from Vietnam, and cornflakes from Michigan. A diet of only local foods would be very bland compared to the diet to which we have become accustomed. So, you can wish for local production all you want, but those pesky humans are going to mess you up every time. They will pay lots of good money to have tasty foods imported from far distant places.

Local production means local foods only. You won't get others to agree to that after they've tasted the goodies of the rest of the world. I sincererly doubt that most readers of this book are actually willing to eat only on what can be organically grown within 20 miles of their residence. If they are not, then they are just chanting, "do as I say, not as I do", which is the fault I find with this book and the author.

Suggesting organic farming as a solution though is frightening. Let's do that simple math again.....one billion hectares and six billion people. Right now, with incredible amounts of oil-based fertilizer, herbicides, pesticides, chemical inputs, and, whoa, even scarier, genetic technology, we are just managing to basically keep those six billion people fed. Organic farming does without those inputs....and produces about 1/4 the equivalent yield. If the world switched to organic farming then 4.5 bilion people would have to starve to death. Even if you are willing to become the biggest mass murderer in the history of the world, people are not just going to sit there and slowly starve to death for you. No, they will fight for food for themselves and their children. When you do the math you will realize that organic farming is much more harmful than the "bad meat" chant (I'll get to that in a second). Organic farming simply equates into less food output. Less food = less people. Westerners, in a shocking display of hypocrisy, can extoll the virtues of organic farming, decry the use of chemical inputs, suggest local production, etc., while they are chewing on their bananas, dining in expensive restaurants, wearing their leather shoes, burning their oil in their luxury SUV. But we can't have it both ways. To the third world we appear as insufferable, arrogant, self-righteous, and astoundingly stupid hypocrites. Imagine yourself in a west African village explaining organic food and local market approaches. I've been there....they've done it that way for thousands of years. They'd think you were retarded for suggesting back-breaking labor and risk of starvation to have organic food. They have organic food, and they would love to swap places with you. After trying to grow your own food there for a year, organically, you'd want out too. Those villagers would love the chance to use modern inputs to increase their yields, and a trip to a US grocery store would seem like something out of a fairy tale to them. Before espousing organic farming and local production imagine yourself as the person who had to do the labor, moreover you life depends upon your success, and, additionally, say goodbye to anything more intersting than gruel to eat. This book offers answers that sound great in theory, but in real practice you'd find absolutely horrifying.

There are real problems with industrial agriculture, primarily its dependency on oil, but I'd prefer to see the author looking at the real problems and trying to craft solutions that can actually be made to work. Solutions that the other 6 billion people on the planet can live with and you can live with too.

Complaining about the $75 billion that the feds plug into American agriculture is not very well thought out. I'm not going to defend a single thing the USDA does.....but I am going to defend the reason why it started and why it has to stay. Despite being a capitalist country, we can't not have a safety net in regards to food. If we don't produce enough food in this country then people will DIE. Get it? It's a concept called food security because food is the most important thing in a society. If you don't believe that, just don't eat for two weeks. You can go without gasoline for two weeks, you can sleep outside if you have too, you can live without your DVDs....but try living without food. Since it is the one necessary item before all others, for thousands of years nations have had food security policies and practices. The people in power have to keep the people fed. If they don't, they won't be in power long. The United States is no different and never has been. We have been so blessed with good farmland and good practices that it has been 80 years since we had food shortages. Starvation is not a place any person or any country wants to be. Ergo, governments spend money on agriculture. Yes, sometimes they do stupid things, but food security can't be left to chance. The US Govt is not going to stop, nor should it, implementing policies for our food security. They may not get it right, there may be incompetence and corruption, but it is up to us to do something about it when they get it wrong. We should be deeply thankful that they don't leave food security to the "Free Market".

Another problem overlooked in this book is one of labor. Before the green revolution about 90% of the world population had to work in agriculture. In America today less than 1% of our population has to do so. That frees up the other 99 of us to build cars and houses, write novels, practice medicine, run utilities, make movies and clothing....to do everything that brings us to the level of technology, wealth, and health we enjoy today. Without industrial farming we can't have those 99 people creating and sustaining our level of technology.

One last point. The whole "meat is bad because it takes eight pounds of grain to make one pound of meat". That's just embarassingly wrong, pure proganda, and thankfully Mr. Pollan doesn't fall into this particular trap. What that argument is really saying is that midwestern style feedlots that feed corn to cows are inefficient and oh my gosh! People could eat that corn instead! Then no one would have to starve. I've heard this argument meaning times before, from many likable people. The problem is that it's not true; moreover it is obviously not true if you think about it. It's an argument that serves the agenda of people who don't like people eating meat. It's an effectively convincing lie apparently, but it is misinformation serving to score political points. I don't care if people eat meat or not, but I do care when deliberate misinformation is used to create a public opinion. Well let me point out the glaringly obvious. Most of the livestock in this world, well over 98%, will never see a feedlot and they will never get to eat anything a person would eat. Hunh? What? By using a small fact, that to fatten a cow in a Kansas feedlot can take eight pounds of corn to creat one pound of gain, and shouting that to the world, you're left to assume that all meat takes eight pounds of grain to create. Not so. No, most of the cows, goats, sheep, chicken, and other beasties in the world that are slated to be our dinners eat things like grass, insects and weeds. Things we can't eat. In fact, I could make a perfectly good argument that based upon on the meat produced for consumption in the world, against all the grain used to create that meat, that it only take 2 ounces of grain to make one pound of meat! Therefore by not eating meat we're going to cause everyone to starve. As Mark Twain once said, "there are lies, there are damn lies, and then there are statistics". Watch out for the lies and the damn liles, but never believe a statistic. Not even mine. Also be careful of believing what others tell you without thinking it through. If you think about it yourself you will realize that most livestock in the world forage for their food. They're not eating anything a human would eat. The "meat is inefficient" argument is only true if applied to an American feedlot and even then it is still specious (a damn lie) for two reasons. Here is the first reason: even those 2% of animals who get to spend a few weeks eating corn and millet in a Kansas feedlot, so that they wind up tasting better to us, still aren't eating human food. Pollan points out they are eating corn that humans can't eat and wouldn't want to eat. Therefore it is a damn lie that what the feedlot cow ate can have been equivalent to 8 times more food for the starving whomever. Now, the anti-meat group's rejoinder is going to be, "yeah, but the land that grows that non-human corn could have been used to grow real human food." Not really. Anti-meat people, because of their bias, tend not to really undrestand much about agriculture as a science. Yes, some of that land used to produce corn to feed cows could be put into human food production; and I guarantee once the need for it is there it will be put into human food production. Farmers make a lot more money on human food than they do on animal feed (humans have more disposable income than cows). So again, the implication of the anti-meat crowd is that we lost 8 times the calories we could have had....not true. If we needed those calories then humans would have gotten them and the pro-meat crowd would have to eat veal rather than steak. Humans are going to get fed before cows do. But the real problem with the "that land could have grown human food" argument is that it is wrong. Those people, because they don't know even the basics about agriculture, conveniently leave out the need for a little thing called crop rotation. It means you don't keep planting the exact same crop over and over again in the same place. You have to rotate crops. Some of our major crops, such as millet, sorghum, and corn, are grown for reasons other than direct human consumption. That turns out to be handy because it means we can rotate crops and keep yields up year after year. Let me try to explain. I could plant wheat five times in a row, but my yields will fall if I do. If I rotate millet into the cycle then maybe I only grow wheat three years and millet one year and sunflower seeds one year during a five year cycle. However, I'll have as much wheat out of my farm as you will have on yours if you tried growing wheat five times in a row. So it turns out the the millet I feed to my dairy or beef cows didn't really cost the world any extra food, did it? Indeed, now I get to eat milk, cheese and ice cream, maybe even a steak once in a while....

Most arguments about food production can be picked apart like I tried to do in the above. The arguments are created to support someone's idea of how they think things should be. They have an agenda, and then they seek facts to support their agenda. I don't have an agenda, but I do see that we have problems. An increasing world population, decreasing genetic variety, soil getting tired, erosion, lack of technology, experience, and inputs for Africa and much of the rest of the third world, depleting phospate reserves, depleting oil reserves, and inconstant weather are all going to be challenges as we go forward. I'd love to see a well-reasoned and rationally sound blueprint that, politics and agendas aside, considers how we are really going to feed 6 billion people now, 9 billion people in 30 years, and how to do it consistently for the next thousand years. This is the real question, and billions of people are relying on us to provide real solutions, ones that everyone can live with. This book unfortunately doesn't do that.

This is a non-fiction account of the history behind the food we eat. This book describes the great industrial food complex and advocates local, organic foods. Extremely well-researched and well-presented. This was a compelling book and will likely convince you to change your eating habits.

The CFO of one of my client companies was discussing Good to Great and it caught my attention! He's a smart man with outstanding work ethics, so it would stand to reason he would find this book a winner.

After reading it, I am amazed that someone finally articulated what many of us had suspected -- it isn't about being good. It isn't about hiring a team to come in and identify our "goals and objectives". It is about something much more quiet, and so much stronger. It is getting the right people on the train...and the wrong ones off. It is about working for the organization, not self.

This book has many fascinating facts which, if you keep them in the lead of your thoughts, will help you go from good to great as well.

The road to greatness is not for faint of heart, the under-dedicated, or those who cannot channel their egos into their organizations to work for the common good. BUT, if you are strong, determined and dedicated to the prize, look out--it's going to happen for your organization!

Definitely, read this book, regardless of where you are in your life/business process.

www.iris-sasakiHR.com

This book has generated so many successful business practices among my client base that who can genuinely put it down? As a companion to my own book, "The Expert's Edge," it completes the picture for business success. Read it over and over and over!

A few years ago, the company I was with purchased copies of Good to Great for managers. I was blown away by the information the book contained. The book went against my thinking at the time. In quick order, I changed my mind-set about several topics and found my `new ways' were more productive to my employer and my career.

Perplexed, I wondered why the executive management of the organization didn't practice the theories advanced in this book. They were after all, the ones that had purchased copies for their managers. Sad to say, the company began a downward spiral and several divisions were sold - myself included.

To my surprise, my new CEO was a huge fan of Good to Great and referred to it often. Outside of his office was a copy of the book permanently resting on a coffee table. In my good fortune, I learned that this CEO and the organization, took the lessons from Good to Great to heart. The company grew and my career grew.

I highly recommend this book to anyone in management. I have included it on my Amazon lists and my Amazon guides. I have stated this is, quite simply, the best book on management available. Michael L. Gooch, SPHR Author of Wingtips with Spurs

The book arrived much sooner than expected and in great shape. Very pleased with the service and product.

I ordered Good to Great along with Amazon's recommended pairing Squawk!: How to Stop Making Noise and Start Getting Results and they are a great match!

First, Good to Great provides a macro level view of what strategies various companies have employed over the last few decades and speculates a link between these strategies and the company's stock performance. As a leader, this book is helpful to consider your own strategies for your organization against some of the best companies in the world.

Squawk! is the perfect pairing for G2G because it covers the strategies an individual leader needs to employ to get commitment from his or her employees, top-notch teamwork and top performance. No leader can operate optimally without the skills to succeed on the one-on-one level, and this is what makes Squawk! such a great match!

simple concise, informative, accessible, and ultimately positive view of the United States in an ever growing global economy..

This is a well written overview of world economies. But it reminded me too much of "The World is Flat" book. Also there is not enough new revelations. I could not finish the book, it did not grab my attention.

Because of its title, Fareed Zakaria's The Post-American World may lead readers to believe that this book predicts the decline of the U.S. as a world superpower. But as the author explains early in the book, his intentions are to describe "the rise of the rest" in the global stage. Zakaria's thesis is that we are entering a world order in which there will be many superpowers, not only one. Interestingly, their power will not lie in their military might, but in their economic prowess.

To support his ideas, Zakaria provide us with fascinating and well-researched historical and socioeconomic data on the "new" global players, among them China and India. Using this data and superb critical thinking, he also discusses the challenges that this new global landscape will present for the U.S.

Perhaps not all of Zakaria's world predictions will come to pass, but he certainly makes a strong case to support this new global scenario. This is an important book and a must read for those interested in international affairs and what the role of the U.S. should be in this, our brave new world.

Great book. I loved it and am passing it on to my friends. It has alot of the same qualities of "The World is Flat", but more of what is happening in China.

This is an interesting book, especially being written by an Indian-American. But it's honestly just another book that gives us warning that India and China are on the verge of really becoming important players on the world's scene. This is not new information and there's really not that much more in this book that can't be found elsewhere. But it's intelligently written and flows nicely. I also like that there's a lot of history backing up his reasons for saying what he says about India and China. It would've been nice if there was something here that wasn't such a tired refrain at this point.

Very good book. I would have been more connected to it if there was deeper character development. It gave good insight into the views of marriage and women in the early 1900s as well as the early career of Frank Lloyd Wright. Mamah and Frank were two people who lived before their times. The decisions that Mamah made were extremely difficult and I'm not sure what I would have done. I very much believe in being in a true, fulfilling, passionate relationship, but having to achieve that at the expense of your children... not so sure. I want to read more about FLW because although he was brilliant and very compelling he seemed like a real narcissist!! I mean, he was FLW, but everything was definitely about him!
But I definitely enjoyed the book and it's definitely worth reading--especially if you like learning while reading fiction which is my favorite.

This book is an interesting story that gives the reader a bit to think about concerning the actual and fascinating lives of these two people. It is well written, and in fact, some passages are stunning. However, its pace often slows to a limp, and I felt as though it should have been concluded in half the number of pages.

I devoured this book. The prose is gorgeous. The story is both controversial and thought provoking. Even by today's standards, it is a story that will have many wagging their tongues. Yet, I came to sympathize and care deeply about the main characters, even if I didn't always agree with the decisions they made. It provoked me to think about women's roles and choices, and how far we've come. After finishing the novel, I felt touched, wiser, and fulfilled having read it. It is now one of my all time favorite books.

Interesting and well written, but it helps to remember that this is a work of fiction since some of the events stretch credulity.

Loving Frank by Nancy Horan is, in its simplest form, about a woman with deep emotional struggles set in the backdrop of the early nineteen hundreds. But this novel is anything but simple. This is the story of Mamah Borthwick Cheney who had to make tough choices in an effort to follow what her heart was feeling and about the high price she had to pay.

At this point I needn't tell you that this story isn't about the legendary architect Frank Lloyd Wright, but about the sordid details of the affair and the way the tabloid blew this relationship way out of proportion. It's funny when you think about it, really. Today, nearly one hundred years after the event the media still craves the blood of celebrities who make similar decisions.

If there is anything bad to say about this novel (and I'm reaching here) is the book takes a few chapters to get the steam engine going. Bud like I said, that's really stretching. Nancy Horan does an exquisite job in bringing this story to life. You'll find yourself sympathizing with Mamah Borthwick Cheney as her love for Mr. Wright tears apart this seemingly love stricken woman. From the inspiring choice by one family and the consequences that resulted this is a must read for all fans of true love.

I'd also recommend reading the highly rated novel: The Fates by Georgiou: Fates (classic)

Thomas Friedman begins with a poor understanding of American history, and extends this into a baffling misunderstanding of world events and energy technology.

the world isn't so much flat as it is suddenly inundated with cheap transportation, fast communication, and un-precedented data storage and processing abilities. the Cheap energy that enables cheap transportation is getting a lot more expensive. and most of the olive trees have to be cut down to create parking lots for all those new cars. A series of enormously expensive oil wars seem to expend all the savings made by outsourcing.

Trade does not decrease the risk of wars. before the Revolutionary War Britain was the number one market for American goods. Before the War of 1812 70 to 85 percent of American trade was with britain. We also spoke the same language and had the same religion. Before the Civil War the States had no real trade barriers between them. Before World War I france and Germany were very important trading partners. Before the Russians entered World War II, Russia was Germany's most important trading partner.

Britain conducted several wars with China to protect the rights of British Merchants to sell Opium to the Chinese. This broke the back of the Chinese government: a serious of regional insurrections and wars killed tens of millions of Chinese and set the stage for the later successful communist revolution: there are no holocaust museums or organizations for this in America.

America outsources production in order to consume more than it produces. Most small towns and cities get hollowed out. This subsidizes the construction and operation of new suburbs, which creates our oil addiction. We'd have been better off never de-industrializing.

Friedman appears on news programs. He wishes the U.S. could be China for a day. the U.S. was better than China for generations. This was when there were tariffs, distance, communications limitations with Asia and Europe, and barriers to exporting manufacturing capital to these places. Today Americans grow up wanting to be lawyers and economists. Lawyers can create their own work, while economists mostly rely on producing lobbying and propaganda for folks who want to become millionaires and billionaires outsourcing. Most american kids don't grow up interested in mechanics, chemistry, applied engineering, or manufacturers: they grow up in suburbs far from an awareness of factories, foundries, appliance repair shops, and science labs.

The World is Flat brings the reader up to speed with what a global economy really means and highlights how far we as a country have fallen behind in regards to education, innovation and other areas critical to the future. The author travels the world and collects true real-life information that would be eye opening for just about anyone. There are other countries who believe that the age of the United States as the ecomomic leader is over and the author explains with facts, not opinion, why they may be right. Freidman goes on to outline what has been suggested, by knowledgeable people from all sectors, to help Americans maintain their leadership position and standard of living. This is a non-partison review of the world and if it was required reading for our politicians the presidential race might be a useful discussion of issues that would truely help our citizens.

Thomas Friedman has truly outdone himself with this one, this is a fantastic description of how the world has/is evolving. It has truly sparked my interest in outsourcing and provided me with numerous interesting tales to add to the occasional conversation.

This book is very well done. Thomas Friedman has put in alot of time in analyzing this book, it contains alot of information, that definitely get one stimulated and should force one to go on nice long thoughts about how the world is changing. All in all this is a great book though long, it contains some excellent information, i would recommend reading it slowly. Pace urself and u will find it enjoyable.

This book has made me afraid to stay in America. I read the book and now I want to move to china or india so bad.

this book got tedious after awhile. I had to keep my eyes from closing and my mind from running somewhere else while I read. In a sense, he kept retelling what he already said in the beginning and almost all of his interviews are from Indian CEOs or Chinese CEOs. Some of the facts I learned from this book are quite surprising.

While I was reading this book, I was overcome by a really big urge to go up to Pres. Bush and slap him.

Overall I liked this book for only the new facts I learned, but other than that it was pretty tedious.

this is a very important book about what happens when the rule and role of law are ignored. when Shakespeare said "first, kill all the lawyers", he was not dissing lawyers, he was commenting on how power hungry rulers can wreak havoc when the lawyers and their lawyerly advice has been extinguished. exactly what happened here. yes, there were several lawyers, of hack quality, involved, but they were hand selected because they would say what cheney, et al. wanted to hear, and if anyone doubts the role that cheney plays in this administration and its disastrous policies, your doubts will be allayed by this book. should be number one on the best seller list, should win every non-fiction award out there, should be required reading for members of congress and should be read by everyone interested in politics and modern history.

Bush and Rice had the information they needed to "perhaps" prevent 9/11. However, they failed to listen. In addition, the CIA and FBI didn't share critical information. The government, the bureaucracy blundered. This book tells it all. It tells how people failed. How agencies failed. And, above all, how a dumbed-down president could not comprehend the dangers that were already in this country and could have been stopped before they killed some 3000 people and brought a great country to its knees. This is, as other reviewers said, a frightening book. It's a book you should read.

- Susanna K. Hutcheson

The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How The War on Terror Turned into a War on American Ideals

An eye-opening, well documented look into the Bush administration. The facts outlined will keep you awake at night, or at least it did me.

I did not expect this book to impact me the way it did. I came away infuriated at the Bush administration and the voters and blind partisans who allowed this to happen. Now there is no longer any doubt; Bush and his appointees knowingly and willfully subverted the U.S. Constitution and violated national and international laws, some of which have been on the books for more than 100 years. In response, I notified two law school faculty members at Stanford, who have expertise in both Constitutional and International Law. One week later, I received an email informing me of the following. "There is enough evidence presented for Impeachment of President Bush, as well as enough evidence for the World Court to prosecute the following members of the Bush administration: John Yoo, Donald Rumsfeld, George Tenet, Dick Cheney, Lewis Libby, Albert Gonzales, Douglas Feith, John Ashcroft, Richard Armitage, David Addington and others. Even more disturbing, the World Court could also prosecute scores of others within the CIA, Pentagon (Armed Services), and private contractors such as Blackwater. Accordingly, we have sent a copy of the book to the World Court." The message is twofold: first, if you have not read the book buy it today; second, guilty members of the Bush administration and federal agencies should hire attornies immediately. Justice is on the way, and not the type dispensed by the U.S. Justice Department during this administration. America may turn a blind eye (and dwell on issues such as abortion, patriotism and homosexuality), but the world will not allow anyone to break international laws with impunity. There are more important matters at stake other than regulating sex and birth.

History is supposed to teach us lessons from the past. From the Alien and Sedition Act, the "Red Scare" of 1919, the detention of thousands of Americans during World War II because of their Japanese ancestry, we were supposed to learn that even through the most dire threat to our safety, the rule of law ennobles us and protects us from tyranny. In "The Dark Side," Jane Mayer explains how easy it is for history to repeat itself in the name of security.

By September 11, 2001, the President of the United States had already spent fifty days of his first eight months in office, on vacation. In spite of several warnings of an impending attack from several foreign intelligence sources, as well as our own, the administration never quite understands the threat.

The attack on a clear summer morning changes that, and it changes things for the worse. The subsequent invasion of Afghanistan allows the military and the C.I.A. to round up hundreds of Taliban prisoners. An offer of a $5,000 bounty for the capture of al-Qaeda and Taliban nets them hundreds more. The administration screams for actionable intelligence from these detainees, but sorting them out and interrogating them is another matter. The assumption is that "enhanced interrogation techniques" will bring more accurate results in less amount of time. It also has to be justified.

The justification comes from John Yoo, the legal counsel for the Justice Department who provides just the argument Dick Cheney and his attorney, Dick Addington are looking for. It says the president can do essentially anything he wants, and ignore Congress, if it for the security of the country. Yoo also states that enhanced interrogation techniques are not torture unless it results in organ failure or death. Alberto Gonzalez joins in describing Afghanistan as a failed state, and their detainees as unlawful combatants. The state department is not consulted.

America's shame is just beginning.

With John Yoo's memo providing the green light, American military and C.I.A. begin to torture detainees in Guantanamo Bay, Saddam Hussein's Abu-Ghraib prison, and one in Afghanistan. The techniques they employ are sleep deprivation, standing for prolonged periods, the absence of light and irregular meal periods to enhance disorientation, water boarding, extreme cold and heat, constant loud music, humiliation, no toilet breaks, confined spaces, prolonged restraints, especially Palestinian hangings, irregular and insufficient periods of sleep, and threats. Other detainees are sent to countries for rendition, countries known for human rights abuses. People will die of exposure, heart attack, or from simply being beaten to death.

While the administration claims that the techniques work, there are too many instances where the tormented harden their resolve during harsh treatment, and cooperate when treated well. Many who are tortured provide false information that sends our intelligence assets on fools' errands. The most damaging disinformation comes from Sheikh Ibn als-Libi who gives evidence against Saddam Hussein while he is being tortured. This is the justification for going to war with Iraq. He only wanted his torturers to stop.

In 2003-4, the policy begins to unravel. Charges are reduced, dropped, or changed against John Walker Lindh, Yasser Hamdi, and Jose Padilla. Since they were tortured, their charges won't stand up in court. Justice Department lawyers begin to question John Yoo's legal precedents. The CIA Inspector General begins to investigate abuses. JAG officers begin refuse to prosecute or serve on military tribunals. In 2005, the Abu-Ghraib scandal will break. It is later estimated that most of the detainees at "Gitmo" are people who were rounded up when they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, or were turned in for the generous bounty offered. They include an eighty-year old deaf man, and a wealthy Kuwaiti businessman who will indignantly refuse to buy another Cadillac after his mistreatment." A German and a Canadian citizen will be kidnapped and tortured before they are set free. Three hundred forty of 749 detainees held in Gitmo will remain there with only a handful being charged.

In spite of a growing rebellion inside the Departments of Defense and Justice, the President refuses to remove people he promised he would hold accountable for abuses. Human Rights Watch estimates that more than 600 U.S. military and civilian personnel were involved in torture.

The true leader of this policy holds a tight rein and his resistance to change is fierce. It is Dick Cheney and his loyal lawyer, Dave Addington. Even the new attorney general, Alberto Gonzalez refuses to go toe to toe with Dave, a tall, snarling bully. Cheney takes the unprecedented step of summoning the C.I.A.'s Inspector General to his office while he is conducting his investigation. The military holds a number of investigations that limit them to looking at the lower ranks. It is also clear by 2005, that Bush is fully aware that some of his senior officials believe that Gitmo should be closed and his detention policy changed. The dissenters and naysayers are excluded from any more discussion. To this day, Bush refuses to budge.

This is a powerful story. The author is holding a mirror to people who have long believed they were just and righteous. This is not just a bucket of cold water, it is being thrown into a river of ice. She tells us that we must look at ourselves if we ever hope to recapture our moral greatness. Even this she concedes will take years. Her book is a good place for our national introspection to begin.

She concludes this powerful report with the following: "Seven years after Al Qaeda's attacks on America, as the Bush Administration slips into history, it is clear that what began on September 11, 2001, as a battle for America's security became, and continues to be a battle for the country's soul."





"This country does not believe in torture." George W. Bush, March 16, 2005.



Also recommended:

Goldsmith, Jack L. "The Terror Presidency: Law and Judgment Inside the Bush Administration,

Miles, Steve, M.D. "Oath Betrayed: Torture, Medical Complicity, and the War on Terror, Random House, 2006.

Wolf, Naomi, "The End of America," Chelsea Green Publishing, 2007.

Wright, Anne, "Dissent: Voices of Conscience," Koa Books, 2008.

Greenwald, Glenn, "A Tragic: How a Good Vs. Evil Mentality Destroyed the Bush Presidency, Crown, 2007.

Greenwald, Glenn, "How Would a Patriot Act: Defending American Values From a President Run Amuck, Working Assets, 2006.