History Books

Once again (I bought three books related with Henry VIII) the contents were the expected, the conditions in wich I received the book were perfect, and in a very reasonable lapse of time

When Alison Weir is the author, the book is unquestionably accurate and a wonderful read. The children of Henry VIIl were exceptional. Elizabeth and Edward were incredibly intelligent. They always fascinate me. Mary, hummmm, maybe not so much. I love anything Alison Weir writes. I have yet to be disappointed in any of her books.

This was a very well written and entertaining book. It was not dry and historical. I was very engrossed in it and found it a very good read if you are interested in Tudor history. I am glad she she spent time on Mary Tudor, because not as much is written about her or her brother as Elizabeth. I found this to be a very good book.

The author demonstrates meticulous research in this book. This is the fourth of her books I have read and find her style clear,dull and somewhat easier to read than the Congrsssional Record.If you are seeking an accurate history with overmuch detail, Alison Weir is the author for you. I prefer a history book with a theme which holds my attention and doesn't wander into taxing paragraphs of detail,dull detail.

Recently I've become interested in the Tudors. I've been following the series on television and have also read a few historical novels. This book, however, is different because it is not a novel. It is a biography. All I can say is WOW - truth really is stranger than fiction - and much more fascinating.

It starts with a short history of the three Tudor siblings. Then, we meet King Edward VI I, a child being manipulated by the men in power. We get to know him as he grows more and more aware of his own power. He believes in the Protestant religion and he and his advisers have put restraints on Catholicism. Of course his oldest sister, Mary, who is in her late twenties and has been raised Catholic is unhappy and resists all the new laws, but he is firm in his own beliefs. By the age of 15, though, he is dying. It is a painful and tragic death and takes a long time. The reader is not spared any of the details. In order to keep England Protestant, on his dying bed, he chooses the next in succession - his cousin Lady Jane Grey, merely 15 years old at the time. She didn't want to be Queen, but was forced into it. Her reign was short (only nine days) and tragic. Soon, Mary became Queen.

This all seems so simple, but, it fact it is quite complicated. The book describes the many plots and subplots, intrigues and politics of the time. Long imprisonments and beheadings were common. And later, during Mary's reign, Protestant heretics were burned at the stake. The reader is not spared any of the grisly details. There were times I got the shivers but I was glad this was not whitewashed history. This was real, it happened, and the writing was so good that I felt I was right there. The author managed to insert constant historical references, including actual letters, into the narrative.

I learned a lot. I didn't know that Queen Mary had been married to a Spanish prince. I hadn't realized that the younger sister, Elizabeth, had spent much of her life imprisoned. I didn't understand the complexities of the constant warfare with other countries. And, even though I knew about the division between the Protestants and Catholics, this book really described the ends that Mary went to in order to force Catholicism on the English people.

It's all here, packed into a mere 366 pages. Well, almost. The book ends with Mary's death and Elizabeth's ascension to the throne. It then simply mentions that Elizabeth enjoyed a 45-year reign. I definitely plan to read some other biography about that reign. But I now have the background to understand it better.

I loved this book and was sorry it ended. Highly recommended.

As a self described "Old Lady" (that is, a grandmother and someone who has been a Christian for a long time now), I have been flummoxed, TOTALLY flummoxed, by the latter day youngsters who seem to love Jesus yet have not embraced His Word at it's fullest, especially concerning righteous behavior. I have a lot of young Christians(under 30) in my life....they visit my home for extended visits and I've worked with them in Africa. I've seen this trend toward liberalism and it has disturbed me greatly.... And it is pure, old-fashioned Liberalism so let's just call it what it is. I try not to "preach" to these youngsters that I love like my own flesh and blood, but lately (especially during the current presidential election cycle here in the U.S.) it has been difficult to keep my mouth shut and we've gotten into some crazy discussions. This book has helped to explain a lot about what the hell has been going on around here. I came of age in the 1960's and I remember the turmoil and I saw the pain and the anguish that living a life of moral and spiritual relativity wrought in many lives. The Bible is clear about right and wrong. And it is particularly clear about what happens when anyone---saved or unsaved---ventures off that road of the straight and narrow in our personal lives. To listen to a Believer condone such matters as fornication, abortion and homosexuality is stunning.
We Christians are here to represent to the fullest Jesus' desire and ability to heal and DELIVER. We are not called to minimize sin and sinful behavior that will always lead to death and destruction. What possible good does a Christian do for his friends if he doesn't walk in the power of God to heal and deliver? What good is a Christian who will not stand up and say, "Wrong. It's just wrong."
It is not just irresponsible for a leader to teach that righteousness is trumped by something else, it is dangerous. As for me, I heed carefully Luke's words in 17:2----"It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin."
Matthew 18:6---- "but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."
Mark 9:42---- "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe to stumble, it would be better for him if, with a heavy millstone hung around his neck, he had been cast into the sea."

1 Corinthians 8:12---- "And so, by sinning against the brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ."

This was the first book that my brother and I read to start becoming more active readers. I thought Kevin's chapters we're well written and very helpful in trying to define and critique this elusive group of every growing individuals. Although the other half of the book written by Ted provided some comic relief and antidotal support to the them of the book (why they're not emergent), I did not think his chapters really contributed much to my understanding overall.

The emergent movement has taken off in many circles of the evangelical world, especially among the young and enthusiastic, and that is one of the reasons why it needs to be dealt with thoughtfully and seriously. Most emergent authors dislike the activity of serious give and take, wanting instead noncommittal "discussion," but this is just another reason why they need the light of scrutiny. I have spent a lot of time in emergent blogs and books, and emergent-critical blogs and books, and can say that this is one of my favorites.

The two authors (who have refreshingly different styles) do a great job of dealing with the serious movers and players in the emergent movement, being irenic where it is called for and critical where it is called for. Each chapter tackles a different theological/ecclesiastical issue by reviewing the emergent literature through copious quotations and interaction, and then holds their views in the light of Scripture and clear thinking. Not surprisingly, very little of the emergent point of view remains standing.

But this book is no polemic. It is a well though-out and well documented critique. Both authors do a good job of honestly representing the views of emergent authors and remain solidly in the core of orthodox doctrine. (I thought there was only one weak chapter.)

One of the things that appealed to me was the breadth of their research, including such recent "hits" as "Velvet Elvis" and "How (Not) To Speak of God." I have not read the first (because I can only take so much of this at once), and I have read the second. Rollins needs to be dealt from a biblical and orthodox point of view, and they did a great job. I also dis/liked Rollins' book.

I highly recommend this book to anyone researching or trying to make up their mind on the emergent movement. They do a great job revealing the theological underpinnings of the leaders, and it should be a revealing warning for all of us. Count me as a third guy who is not emergent, even though he should be.

I was very pleased with the book and would recommend it to anyone interested in new religions. Very informative on the subject title.

This is one of the best books I have read in a decade. It not only untangles and critiques the threads of the emergent movement (and key figures and books), but it passionately presents the church as it ought to be. In between grimacing over emergent errors, I was glad to see a positive present and future for the 'traditional' local church. Buy two copies -- one to read again, and one to give away.

A very zen approach to becoming more mindful and thereby becoming more meditative and spiritual about every day miracles. This book hit all the high notes with me.

Easy inexpensive purchase!
Very quick delivery!
I love it when it's like that!

Two copies (One for a friend)

Mindfulness in Plain English, Updated and Expanded Edition

Not quite as easy a read as I was lead to believe in the reviews. But definitely an excellent overview of mindfulness. I liked how it pointed out the pitfalls some beginners run into. I liked how they outlined the variety of ways meditation can be practiced. I would recommend this book to other beginners.

I purchased this book because I was interested in learning about the concept of mindfulness. I wasn't exactly looking to develop a serious meditation habit, but during my reading of the book I began to embrace the idea. I read the book and wanted to re-read it fairly soon after finishing, but I loaned it out to someone. I'm eager to get it back and read it again, but I've told someone else they can borrow it! I may have to buy another copy. The book is well-laid-out, covers the subject matter very well, and opened my eyes to a new way of thinking. I'm trying to become a more regular meditator; currently I do it in ten-minute increments a couple of times a week at minimum, but I'm hoping to build from there. Also: I'm currently reading the "sequel" to this book, called "Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness: Walking the Buddha's Path." I'm only in the beginning but I'm finding it on par with "Mindfulness in Plain English" -- informative and eye-opening, and teaching me things that I feel can impact my everyday thinking (and hopefully result in an overall healthier mind).

THIS BOOK ENGAGES THE READER. THERE IS ALSO HUMOR IN THE PART ON MEDITATION AND THE INTERFERENCES THAT COME DURING YOUR ATTEMPTS TO MEDITATE THAT MAKE THE BOOK EVEN MORE ENJOYABLE.

This book opened my eyes as to the business of this current war. However; given what has transpired with the global economy in just the past couple of weeks, I would like to see a revised, updated book that accounts for what influence, if any, the war with Iraq has played with the most current events.

Great detailed analysis of the comprehensive cost of this war. 3 trillion is still conservative.

This book puts forth a lot of numbers and tries to put a price on certain things that should not have to have a price on it: such as the price of a human life. But it needs to happen because obviously this country does not value the lives of its soldiers.

This book backs up the sentiment that veterans feel, that their life, sacrifices and the sacrifices of their family are for not. Stieglitz shows how our disabled veterans even if paid at the maximum rate, will not be compensated fully for the cost of their medical treatments even when the payments last a lifetime. This is not including the loss in their potential earnings because of their loss in productivity. Stieglitz goes even farther and shows how the loss of productivity to family members is not accounted for, because they have to take time off of work or even quit working to take care of their veteran.

This work is a must read for everyone. It is a wake up call to all Americans, this war is going to cost us, but the cost should not be passed onto our veterans. Everyone that reads this book should at the very least call their representative and demand that they step up and take care of our veterans.

This is from the news analysis piece that was posted at Fox News on Monday, June 16, 2008 under the title shown above. The links to the sources are in the original piece.

What is the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars? To many, the answer, at least from 2001 through 2007, is $473 billion -- about a quarter of total defense expenditures over those years. It has averaged less than 1 percent of GDP.

$473 billion is probably an underestimate simply because the fighting has already lasted past 2007 and some wounded veterans will require long-term care. But how much more is it?

In a new book, The Three Trillion Dollar War, Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes argue that this emphasis on what the government has already spent dramatically understates the true cost of the war. At roughly six times the defense department's numbers, their $3 trillion estimate has generated much news coverage and controversy.

Stiglitz, the former chairman of President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisors and Nobel Prize winner, told FOX News by telephone from Spain that his message has been getting a "very positive reaction" in Europe. Many are angry over how the Bush administration "misrepresented the facts that got us into the war." Other countries that stayed out of the war are "very relieved that they hadn't gotten involved" when they hear how large the costs of the war have been. He claims, "the British are very sorry for their complicity in selling the war."

According to the authors, the normal reliance on total operational costs for the military leaves out many important costs. Among them are: the future costs of running the war ($669 billion), the future costs of taking care of wounded veterans ($630 billion), the loss of life for soldiers killed or injured ($337 billion), interest payments on loans to cover the federal deficit ($616 billion), and the increased cost of gasoline at the pump and its impact on the economy ($800 billion).

But what to count and how to value these various items is highly controversial. Even opponents of the war have expressed doubt over how Stiglitz and Bilmes have added up the numbers.

For example Richard Zerbe, Associate Dean at the University of Washington School of Public Affairs and president-elect for the International Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis, opposes the war, but is concerned that their analysis is "clearly double-counting the costs. It should be obvious." He also has difficulties with the values attached to some of problems created by the war.

Regarding veterans who are disabled and unable to work, Zerbe says that it goes too far to attach the same loss to those soldiers as to soldiers who have died. He feels that the Stiglitz and Bilmes analysis has "too narrow a view of life, way too production orientated." Zerbe argues that just because these disabled soldiers can't work doesn't mean that they place no value on living.

To get an idea of how large Stiglitz and Bilmes's numbers are, compare them the Congressional Budget Office's Matthew Goldberg, the Deputy Assistant Director for National Security, offered last October. Goldberg testified that the future medical care costs, disability compensation, and survivors' benefits up to 2017 would likely range from $10 to $13 billion. (Since the Democrats control congress, they control the Congressional Budget Office.) But with these authors putting their estimate of total costs of veteran injuries at over $900 billion ($630 billion from taking care of the wounded and $273 billion from the harm done to wounded and injured soldiers), it is hard at first to believe that they are talking about the same thing.

Edgar Browning, one of the most cited public finance professors and the author of the forthcoming book "Stealing from Each Other: How the Welfare State Robs Americans of Money and Spirit," is even more critical than Zerbe. He notes that, "$473 billion is the most defensible estimate of the cost of the war over the first five years. Everything beyond that is padded. They invent unrealistic scenarios, double count, and the like."

One simple example involves Stiglitz and Bilmes counting both the expenditures on the war as well as the interest payments paid on the money borrowed to finance those expenditures. As far as the taxpayers are concerned, they care about what they have to pay. If the money is borrowed, you can't count both the current expenditure and the future interest payments because taxpayers don't have to pay directly now for the current expenditures. It is only when they pay off the interest that they will really pay the bill.

The same issue arises when they count both the salaries and benefits paid to the soldiers plus the costs of their medical care on the one hand -- all part of the non-disputed operational costs -- and also attaching additional value of life lost to those soldiers who have been killed or injured. Risky jobs such as being a police officer or stunt man require higher pay and benefits to compensate for the chance of being killed or injured. Indeed, it is this very premium that economists use to calculate the loss from police officers getting killed. Economists traditionally count either one of these costs that Stiglitz and Bilmes include, but not both at the same time.

Given their unorthodox method of counting costs, Stiglitz and Bilmes were asked whether any other economists used the same approach to evaluate these interest costs or values of life and injury, but they were unable to identify anyone. Bilmes responded by telling FOX News that "this book is not an academic paper. It is a book about the cost of the war."

On oil prices, Stiglitz and Bilmes argue that "the longer [the war] has dragged on, the higher the prices have gone. This certainly suggests the war has something to do with the rising prices. On this almost all oil experts agree." But, again, even those who oppose the war disagree with this claim. Peter Hartley, a professor at Rice University who specializes in energy economics, told FOX News that in fact the opposite was more nearly the case: "Almost all oil experts would disagree."

Hartley said that the "increase in prices from the war is only temporary. You can only change prices by changes in supply or demand. The only supply and demand changes that they could point to from the war are some temporary changes from uncertainty."

Al Harberger, an economics professor at UCLA and the current president of the International Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis, mentions another concern about the book. Interest rates enter into calculating the costs of the war not only in terms of interest payments on loans, as we have already discussed, but also how to put into current day dollars costs that may not be born for a decade from now.

Harberger argues that a too low interest rate makes it look like the future expenditures on the war look larger today than they really are. Higher interest rates mean that you don't have to put aside as much money to pay for those future costs. In Stiglitz and Bilmes's case, they use an interest rate below what it costs the government to borrow money. Harberger says that the opposite is true, the rate should be higher and you have to figure out what private investment you are giving up by loaning money to the government.

Surprisingly, Stiglitz and Bilmes' book never mentions or responds to well-know responses from other academics who have criticized their earlier published claims. The most notable critics are Stephen Davis, Kevin Murphy and Robert Topel, professors at the University of Chicago. Even Davis, Murphy and Topel's worst-case estimate of the costs of the war run up to $1 trillion in today's dollars, with their most realistic estimates at less than half that amount.

Then there is the huge cost for the Iraqi people. Possibly the most controversial claim in the book involves their estimate that well over one million Iraqis will have died from the US invasion by the year 2010. Without any caution or hesitation, they rely on an extremely controversial study published in the medical journal, Lancet. Stiglitz and Bilmes took Lancet's estimated 654,965 deaths from the American involvement in Iraq from March 2003 to July 2006 and assumed that Iraqis would continue dying at that the same yearly rate through March 2010. The Lancet number is over 10 times the number of Iraqi deaths claimed by the Iraqi and US governments.

Concerns have been raised about whether Iraqis surveyed were honest and provided accurate information or whether they may have given politically motivated answers to exaggerate "'crimes' committed by the Americans." Some survey experts have attacked the survey for not doing the most basic things to "prevent fabrication" of the data. For instance, there was no effort to trace death certificates to confirm claimed deaths. The survey was conducted and overseen by Riyadh Lafta, a child-health official in Saddam Hussein's ministry of health, whom some claim was biased. Others have questioned why the original surveyors' reports and the raw data have never been released to other researchers.

Still others expressed concern that the timing of the survey's release immediately before the 2006 election was political motivated and that the funding for the survey by George Soros was only discovered long after the publicity for the results had subsided.

While acknowledging these objections to the survey conducted by Lafta, Bilmes told FOX News that their estimate of over one million civilian deaths was an underestimate of Iraqi causalities, 92 percent of which were supposedly killed by bullets, bombs, or U.S. air strikes. She said that the numbers showed that "the costs of the war far outweigh any possible gain."

Perhaps what is most surprising about the extensive news coverage the book has received is that critical comments by other economists have received no coverage in the media. A search of news stories on "The Three Trillion Dollar War" did not show a single economist being quoted as disagreeing with their estimate of the cost of the war.

Professor Browning tried to put the costs of the war in some perspective: "[the war] is expensive, but it isn't anywhere near as expensive as other programs that the government does. The war on poverty over the first five years of the war was over $3 Trillion."

As Bilmes said, the media frenzy over their book has been "crazy." That is not surprising, since three trillion dollars is a lot of money. Yet, serious objections to their estimates cut across the political spectrum. Others place the best cost of the war estimates at a sixth of what Stiglitz and Blimes claim.

It's no secret that war is expensive. The question a society at war must ask itself is, Just how expensive is it going to be? And, Is the war worth it? With "The Three Trillion Dollar War", Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes take a crack at answering these questions with respect to the current conflict in Iraq.

Taking the second question first, Stiglitz and Bilmes stake out their position in the book's very first sentence: "By now it is clear that the US invasion of Iraq was a terrible mistake." (p. ix) The authors are certainly entitled to their opinion. The question readers of "The Three Trillion Dollar War" must consider is the degree to which opinion distorts analysis. Ideally we would like a dispassionate estimate of the dollar costs of this war, and we do get that here. Unfortunately the partisan slant of the presentation will devalue the analysis for a perceptive reader, regardless of that reader's position on the war.

The first third of this short book lays out a well-researched lump sum estimate of the costs to date, and likely future costs based on government scenarios, of the Iraq War. As the book's title suggests, Stiglitz and Bilmes think the war is going to end up costing the United States treasury about $3 trillion, based on final troop withdrawal in 2017. Costs not captured in the federal budget, such as lost earning power of troops killed and wounded, push that number higher.

A number of important points become clear in the course of these early chapters. First, the federal government's budgeting and accounting practices are seriously flawed. A startling lack of transparency surrounds the process. Perusal of the book's extensive footnotes reveals how the authors pieced together their cost estimates from a hodgepodge of scattered publicly available government data, private sector and nonprofit estimates, and Freedom of Information Act requests. It seems that no one really knows how much this war is costing the country. The authors believe that is so because the government wants it that way, and based on the evidence it's hard not to agree. In the book's final chapter Stiglitz and Bilmes suggest several reforms which we would do well to consider, including requiring the Department of Defense to present clear financial statements to Congress so the people and their representatives can accurately track the ongoing costs of the nation's wars. Indeed, this should be a basic requirement of any free society.

Another point that becomes depressingly clear is the extent to which the Bush administration underestimated the costs of the war. In hindsight the administration's selling points seem patently absurd. In April 2003 USAID head Andrew Natsios told Ted Koppel that the total cost to US taxpayers of reconstructing Iraq would be less than $2 billion - Iraqi oil profits and donations from allies would cover the difference. Meanwhile the war has ended up costing the country $800 billion to date. At best, the administration's planners demonstrated gross incompetence; at worst, a willful intention to mislead the public in the push to sell the war.

Reasonable people will agree that $3 trillion is a credible number for the base costs of the Iraq War. Unfortunately there are some serious problems with Stiglitz's presentation. For one, the war costs are just presented as lump sums. In reality, these costs will accumulate over a course of years - in the case of some costs (such as medical benefits for injured soldiers) over a course of decades. The intention seems to be more to shock us with big numbers than to inform and illuminate. The analysis would be better presented in multi-year cash flow format.

It's also a challenge to reproduce the author's cost conclusions just based on the text and footnotes. Stiglitz and Bilmes have set up a slick website to market this book - how can we convince them to make their calculations available online so we can check their numbers? It's ironic that a book which calls for greater transparency in accounting should itself fail to provide transparency.

Thirdly, the estimated war costs are not placed in context. There is no discussion of the size of the federal budget, which would help us understand the depth of our financial commitment. On one estimate, $3 trillion represents approximately 5% of the total federal budget between 2003 and 2017; but we have to keep in mind that many war costs will be incurred after 2017, so the actual proportion is lower. There is no room for a detailed discussion here; suffice it to say that Stiglitz and Bilmes have done their analysis and their readers a disservice by failing to contextualize their figures.

The second half of the book discusses the global costs of the war in Iraq - the economic impact to other countries. The crux of this discussion is the author's contention that high oil prices have retarded global growth and that "a significant proportion of the increase in the price of oil resulted from the war." (p. 117) And there is an attempt to quantify the impact to global economic production.

The problem with this assertion is that it is just wrong. Presumably our Nobel Prize winning economist is familiar with the concept of supply and demand. It is this principle which determines the price of oil on world markets. In 2003, when oil was $25/bbl, Iraqi oil production hit its lowest level in 10 years - 1.344 million bbls/day according to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2008. In 2007, Iraqi production topped prewar levels at an average of 2.145 million bbls/day. Meanwhile oil is now trading above $135/bbl.

Not that Stiglitz presents any arguments in support of his oil price assertion. It's just flatly stated. In fact the high price of oil is a function of rising demand from Asia and falling production from major oil fields the world over. Iraq has had nothing to do with it. Of course it's left unstated that the Iraq reconstruction effort benefits from high oil prices.

The worst part is my suspicion that Stiglitz knows all of this. The oil argument is a way to pump his war cost estimates and spur further outrage among the choir. Since winning the Nobel Prize in 2001, Stiglitz has used his honorific as a bully pulpit to advance a decidedly left-leaning political agenda. Which is more than fine; it's just a shame that he also seems to have abandoned the scholar's commitment to fact-based analysis. Perhaps it's time we recognize the great economist for what he has become: a political pundit with an axe to grind.

I got this book for my birthday and I'm really, really glad that I got it. Want to get that out of the way first. As a basic reference source it's excellent as a geeky coffee table book it's pretty much without peer. It's on my desk at work and at least once a day I get into a vigorous debate or pleasant conversation about Marvel and Marveldom. On a personal level, as the only guy in my neighbourhood who collect all of OHOTMUDE (seriously, the comic guy got one copy of each issue and kept it behind the counter for me), it's just a fun read.

Unfortunately, while it could have been much more than that, it's really just a fun read.

There are numerous typographical errors, about one every two pages or so. Either the origin issue is wrong, a word is badly misspelled or, as is the case with the entry for the Soviet Super Soldiers, the majority of the illustrated heroes are labelled as "Undefined" when even this casual comic book fan can remember most of the names. It just didn't go through a final editing spit-and-polish and it shows.

Definitely a book that belongs in the collection of your average comic book geek, but it could have been quite a bit better.

The Marvel Encyclopedia is a fantastic compilation of the characters inhabiting the Marvel universe. It was interesting reading the backgrounds on the wide array of characters as well as where they first appeared (what issue, year, etc.). The more popular characters (Wolverine, Venom, Spiderman, etc.) are usually given one to two pages for their own history and rightly so. There's more of a following and interest in someone like Venom's history as opposed to a lesser known villain that lasted 3 issues in 1974 (and thus is given a postage stamp-sized blurb). Also, I would have to say the deal on Amazon was great. It was $26 here versus a $40 price tag I saw at a local chain book store.

this book is full of cool things and i really like it and i just love this book . it is so fun to read.

My son Jarett is 8 yrs old and very much into marvel super heros and especially the villians!!! This book is so detailed and so wonderfully illustrated. We can't believe you can learn so much about one charater in a paragraph or just one page. You will find out things you did not know. For example, what happened to Mary Jane Watsons mother!!!! But the best part is my son carries this huge book around wherever he goes. He reads in the car back and forth to karate practice and even sits on the couch and reads instead of TV or nintendo DS all the time!!!! He has not put it down since he recieved it. In fact, he put on his Christmas wish list the DC encylopedia next!!!! Thank you marvel for making such a wonderful and interesting book even a mom can enjoy with her son!!!!

My kids are young (girl-3 and boy-5) but they love going through the pictures and asking me to read about each superhero's powers. Really feeds their imagination. My daughter favorite super power is strength (like in the Incredible Hulk) and my son's is producing fire. Mine is flying. Wooooosh!

We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will be Killed With Our Families: Stories from Rwanda
A Preventable Tragedy
"
Philip Gourevich's award-winning retrospective of the Rwanda Genocide in 1994 takes a rational look at the unfathomable and irrational. Gourevich spent many months in the war-ravaged country and talked with dozens of survivors. The facts aren't in dispute...over 800,000 Tutsis were hacked to death by machete-wielding Hutus...but the causes are. Among his conclusions: the "ancient animosity" between Hutus and Tutsi's is largely a creation of the West; the colonial powers Germany and Belgium inflamed ethnic divisions where they did exist; and the Church (Protestant and Catholic) remained silent as the killing continued.
There is enough blame to go around in the story: the International Relief Community, the UN, the media and the major powers. International tribunals have found fault with everyone. Gourevich takes some time exploring the whole concept of genocide:
"Nobody knows how many people were killed at Nyarubuye. Some say a thousand, and some say many more: fifteen hundred, two thousand, three thousand. Big difference. But body counts aren't the point in a genocide, a crime for which, at the time of my first visit to Rwanda, nobody on earth had ever been brought to trial, much less convicted. What distinguishes genocide from murder, and even from acts of political murder that claim as many lives, is the intent. The crime is wanting to make a people extinct.
The idea is the crime."
As a double-dose of genocide studies, I am also currently reading "Pol Pot:Anatomy of a Nightmare."

Pol Pot: Anatomy of a Nightmare

Philip Gourevitch, in We Wish to Inform You, has accomplished an incredible feat: a moral and reasoned history of an insane situation. He manages to cut through all of the misinformation that we so often hear about the Rwandan Genocide and write something truly informative.

Other reviews on Amazon have complained about his focus on the political/violent situation in the entire region, but I strongly disagree. How are we to understand the genocide without its context and without the context that it created in nearby countries? I also found myself very interested in Rwanda's (and the region's) possibilities for a decent future.

This book is also damning towards the "international community," as well as international journalism of our times. The "international community" failed to intervene in the genocide - indeed, France even armed the genocidaires - and even fed and housed the genocidaires after they fled Rwanda. And Western Journalists consistently wrote the type of stories that were no more informative than "people are killing each other." Well, in this book, Philip Gourevitch has completely negated any previous excuse about the complexity of the situation or how little information was available, because he managed to quite clearly get to the heart of the situation and explain it quite easily, but in all its complexity, to us non-experts and non-historians.

I've lived in Africa near Rwanda for several years and have studied the Rwanda genocide extensively in graduate school. There is no better book about the genocide than "We Wish to Inform You.." It's extremely sad, frustrating, and fascinating at the same time. Gourevitch tells the stories so well that this doesn't read like non-fiction. My favorite part about this work is how he goes into detail about the refugee situation after the genocide, a time not as well documented as the actual genocide. It was fascinating how the international aid machine facilitated more murders by the interahamwe. The story he unravels is engaging and suspenseful and you can't wait to turn the page to find out what nugget of knowledge he turns up next. Pitching curveball after curveball, you are bound to learn a lot about many issues surrounding the genocide by reading this book.

I purchased and read this book last year, as I have studied the subject on this one quite extensively.
This book gets off to a good start, but loses interest as the book progresses.
There is also a lack of real-life survivors and witnesses imput, which could have made it more interesting.
The book however shed light onto many of the problems and atrocities that occurred after the genocide - which I wasn't particularly savy about previously - most notablly the problems in the Congo as a result of Genocidaires fleeing and relocating there - and still not losing their blood-lust and total disrespect for life.
Still a good addition to your home library however.
Derek Meade, NSW, Australia

We now know the basic story. Hutu extremists killed Tutsis and the world ignored them. The "International Community" from President Clinton to the Red Cross ignored Rwanda and allowed it to happen.
In Gourevitch's book, he looks not only at those months but also afterwards. The struggle and continued animosity between Tutsis and Hutus led to the tangled web of involvement in the Congolese wars. Mobutu stood on one side; while Kabalia stood on the other.
The work itself is insightful and well-written. However, while he is quick to condemn the Hutu Power and the "international community" (both correct in being condemned) he does little to give similar condemnation of Paul Kagame or his compatriots who are now in charge in Rwanda.
The world stood by and ignored the genocide and all we can do now about it is say "Never Again," again.

Jack and Annie travel back in time to the year of 1621,the time of the Pilgrams.Jack and Annie was sent by Morgan Le Fay to find the art of magic. Jack and Annie were in a forest and spied on the pilgrams when they got there, but Annie saw a dog which scared Jack and alerted the pilgrams. Jack told this fib to Squanto and the pilgrams. After the fib, all of the kids went hunting and gathering while Jack and Annie went into the water, in search for eels and clams in the ocean. After, they went to a house and cooked turkey for the feast. Jack ruined the turkey and felt horrible. It was all right and they had a feast outdoors. Jack and Annie returned home after finding the magic of community.

All this book is about how the Indians and Pilgrims started Thanks giving. I read thi book when i was 8. It was alright back then.

BE CAREFUL WHEN YOU READ THIS BOOK !!!!

My 1st grader hates to put it down, he would rather read Magic Tree House books, than play video games. He even reads them to his class and explains the story for show and tell. In his kindergarten class the teacher would also let him read the Magic Tree House books out loud, not to give her a break, but to promote reading out loud. Great books!

Thanksgiving on Thursday is an okay book because it is about a boy (Jack) and a girl (Annie) that go back in time to the first feast of thanksgiving. They help a woman prepare for the first Thankgiving dinner. They had to gather some of the food for the harvest. Jack gets caught in a snare set for an animal! Read it--it's okay!

The story startes out when Jack and his little sister Annie are on their way to a place called Plymouth. At first they had no idea where they were until Jack was hung after he accidently steped into a trap; they finally found out where they were.

First, this story takes place during the time of the pilgrims coming to the United States from England on a ship well-known as the Mayflower. The story's sequence startes when Jack and Annie are introduced to all the pilgrims and an indian; his name Squanto. Sooner on in the story Jack and Annie learn how to hunt and fish for there own food. While in a women's house Jack learned how to cook over the fire. But, they run into a problem; they didn't know how things ran around there. But a women nice enough told them just that. Her nam was Prinscilla.

Last in the story they have wonderful and unforgiving diner. Also known as the First Thanksgiving Feast. Jack and Annie enjoyed their time in Plymouth because they have learned as much as I did.

I thought that this book was an awesome experience for me because I have learned alot about the pilgrims and what it was like back in the day.