History Books

This particular version of Nicccolo Machievelli's "The Prince" was incredibly easy to read. There was no rubbing my noggin wondering what he was saying. Nope it was as clear as day and the way that he described retaining power is still the same today as it was in his day. Albeit a little less bloody.

Without a doubt, Nicolo Machiavelli has to be the most dissembling, evil man I've ever read. Though he covers it well in his constantly changing subjects and demeanor I would have not wanted to be around him in the 16th century. I would have never trusted him not to ensnare me in one of his plots!

Heard THE PRINCE by Niccolo Machiavelli, one of those books
that I've always meant to read . . . but just never got around to do so.

Now I finally had the opportunity (as a result of being able to listen to it
while driving) and am glad I did--particularly because of its relevance
to what's currently happening in politics . . . also, as a result, I now
have a better understanding of the term Machievellianism . . . or
that any means, however unscrupulous, can justifiably be used
in achieving political power.

Though originally written in the 16th century, THE PRINCE is still
remarkably up to date . . . the examples used by Machiavelli
feel like they come from today's headlines . . . also, they pertain
to many situations wherein power is utilized--both in business
and in the political arena.

There were many quotes that got me thinking; among them:
* Hence it is necessary for a prince wishing to hold his own to know
how to do wrong, and to make use of it or not according to necessity.

* We have not seen great things done in our time except by those
who have been considered mean; the rest have failed.

And this final one:
* If men were entirely good this precept would not hold, but because
they are bad, and will not keep faith with you, you too are not bound
to observe it with them. Nor will thee ever be wanting to a prince
legitimate reasons to excuse this nonobservance.

I found it interesting to learn that Machievelli wrote this book
after he was fired as Secretary to the Second Chancery of the
Signoria . . . methinks that had he been around now, Tim Russert
and/or other political commentators could well be out of job.

Machiavelli's "The Prince" is a guide of morality-void techniques for acquiring and maintaining political power and ultimately, political fortune. Written nearly 500 years ago, this blueprint for tyranny is just as relevant today. As his compass, Machiavelli uses history, both ancient and contemporary. In 500 years, no one has proven him wrong. Here's a flavor for you innocents out there: "For, in truth, there is no sure way of holding other than by destroying, and whoever becomes master of a City accustomed to live in freedom and does not destroy it, may reckon on being destoyed by it". War is Machiavelli's wet dream: "A Prince, therefore, should have no care or thought but for war, and for the regulations and training it requires, and should apply himself exclusively to this as his peculiar province; for war is the sole art looked for in one who rules". Espousing the virtues of the noble lie, Machiavelli follows up with, "men are so simple, and governed so absolutely by their present needs, that he who wishes to deceive will never fail in finding willing dupes". And with this quote, I now challenge anyone to dispute the Machiavellian nature of the American Corporate State as written about in Don't Weep for Me, America: How Democracy in America Became the Prince (While We Slept). All the parallels are brought to light, always through the eyes of George Orwell. Get informed. Your city (country) is being destroyed...

A young colleague of mine recently said `management is easy'. I smiled enigmatically and considered buying him a copy of `The Prince' but I fear it would be wasted. I am now on my third copy of this book which, alas, I can only read in English. The George Bull translation (as reprinted in 1995) is the version I currently refer to.

I first read this book when studying economic history at high school in the second half of the last century. I was intrigued by Machiavelli's advice even though I had little understanding of the Florentine Republic. I next read the book when looking more generally at political models and at Renaissance history. Since then, I've always had a copy: it is as relevant to understanding the art and practice of management as it is to a broader understanding of the models and processes of governance. It also provides some valuable contextual setting for those interested in the Medici.

So why is `The Prince' still relevant? What can we learn from a treatise that was dedicated to Lorenzo de Medici (1492 - 1519) but not published until 1532, some five years after Machiavelli himself was dead?

Specific settings and circumstances may change: general human psychology and motivation does not. There is politics involved in all management. The chasm between management theory and practice is occupied by politics (in all senses) and complicated by the affairs, aspirations and expedient alliances of people.

Jennifer Cameron-Smith

Yes.... if you are a card carrying member of the white race desperate to cling to the myth that America is a good and just nation... one that should be held up as an example for the rest of the world to gaze at in awe... BUT If you are just a citizen, interested in a complete history of your country (warts and all) this book will fill in so many of the gaps your text books left blank

He gives some needed attention to different perspectives in American history. It is valuable, but I have problems. For one, he lumps Euro-American together too much as one monolithic bad group. Different socioeconomic, geographical and religious groups of Euro-American have responded much differently than his stereotype suggests. (such as Quaker efforts to fight against slavery and for the arrest of those who attacked Native Americans.)
Also, this text comes in the context of a university system that won't allow similar texts about non-European civilizations. Virtually every literate civilization was sexist and, to one degree or other, oppressed and killed people who were different from the dominant male group (although usually not for racial reasons, I don't think that mattered much to the people these civilizations killed or oppressed.)
I did an internet search of university classes--not one that I could find offered anything close to a critical evaluation of a non-Euro civilization. Evidence exists in abundance--for example Asian primary sources describe massacres of indigenous peoples during state expansion (as Euro-Americans did in American expansion) but these indigenous peoples never get a voice or more than a footnote in mainstream Western histories of Asia (although the facts are freely acknowledged in Asian histories of Asia.) Some Islamic imperialists, contrary to Western ivory tower beliefs, did massacre and oppress people because of their religion (as described by contemporary Muslim historians and accounts of their Zoroastrian, Jewish, Christian and Hindu victims.) Instead of acknowledging a real diversity of Muslim civilizations over time which ranged from enlightened to totalitarian, we get assigned books like "Good Muslim, Bad Muslim" which rationalize every unprovoked act of imperialism over the last 1,400 years. Europhile liberals even want to minimize some of what Europe did compared to what the United States did. The university itself won't be free of bias until we can actually see Empires like the Aztec and Assyrian analyzed not only by the view of the dominant male groups in those societies, but also by the women and conquered people, without the rationalizations currently employed. Multicultural historians don't seem to notice the irony that histories of these non-Euro empires have the same bias of having only one perspective that tradional American history books had. If anyone challenges this they cry "colonialist" just as older Euro-American historians would cry "unpatriotic" when their biases were being questioned.

I had to read this book for a class and write an essay on it. I gave this book two stars because it is informative. Otherwise, it's a book that makes "white" people look horrible. What about all of the other cultures that systematically perform atrocities on their people? If you want to feel guilty about being white, read this book. It is good to know the history in this book and to learn that these cultural-hate-crimes should not be repeated.

I hated this book. Needed it for a "multicultural awareness in education" class. It was boring, hard to follow, difficult to understand and written in some sort of "language" that only Einstein could comprehend.

If one were to write a history of any nation exclusively from the perspective of minority groups would it be a fair, complete and accurate portrait of that nation's story, character and culture? Probably not, but nonetheless you would have a penetrating look inside the world view of those who may get overlooked in the panoramic style of many history books. This is what you walk away with from Ronald Takaki's wonderful book `A Different Mirror'.

The book is somewhat dated considering many newly published American history books include the tales of blacks, women, Indians, Jews and even gays but `A Different Mirror' remains valuable because Takaki provides nuggets of information about the contributions of particular groups that aren't well know but are important and deserve acknowledgement.

A downside to this book, and it's serious, is that with the use of Shakespearean and other literary references, Takaki weaves a common thread of victimhood among all groups, suggesting that American society is nothing close to what it claims to be in the preamble of the Constitution. No society is perfect and though groups in America may have been exploited, America does not hold a monopoly on exploitation. Yet millions of minorities continue to rush into this nation for its distinct qualities that are rare and non-existent in other parts of the world. It would have enhanced Takaki's goal, which was to tell the stories of minority groups, if he didn't overlook the positive factors that compelled many to select this country.

If you want an introduction into American history this shouldn't be the only book you read, but `A Different Mirror' is enjoyable and highly recommended for anyone who wants to get a fuller picture of the American story.

Aristotle's ethics is a theory of excellence so it definitely spoke to me as a individual. He starts with the claim that the end of all human action is happiness and he claims that happiness requires virtue. He goes on to look at several different types of virtues and he believes they can be perfected through practice. One is to practice at finding the golden mean between excess and deficiency. To use an example from Aristotle to illustrate, one is to act courageously, but it is rash to act with too much courage and it is cowardice to not act with enough courage. Therefore, he supports finding the mean in all human action and this is to lead to happiness. Books 8 and 9 give the best treatise on friendship that I have ever found so I recommend those two books above all of the rest. Overall the whole book is worth ones time though. Aristotle's ethics is a simple and a commonsensical approach to ethics so nobody should be put off from reading this book due to its difficulty.

To have learned from Plato and to have taught Alexander the Great should make us take this man seriously. But the level of debate with himself in the Nichomachean ethics is awesome in and of itself. There are of course times when you have to hit "play back" just to digest the argument. there are also times when you realise other people have taken up where he left off. However, the sheer originality of his genius, the sweep of his knowledge and grasp of different fields of learning, leave the reader feeling a gain of at least ten points of IQ. The woman who reads on this audio production has outstanding elocution and reads with feeling and emphasis at the right places. I prefer to hear Aristotle, and Plato for that matter, than to read them. This is a beautiful and very professional production.

I read this book for a graduate seminar on Aristotle. Irwin's translation of Aristotle is the very best available! I think Aristotle's ethics is his most seminal work in philosophy. In the early 1960's virtue ethics came to fore. It is a retrieval of Aristotle. It has very close parallels to the ancient Chinese philosophy of Confucius and the modern philosophy espoused in the 1970's called Communitarianism.

For Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics, (EN) is about human life in an embodied state. Area of inquirery for EN is "good" this is his phenomenology. What does "good" mean? He suggests good means "a desired end." Something desirable. Means towards these ends. Such as money is good, so one can buy food to eat because "eating is good." In moral philosophy distinction between "intrinsic good" vs. "instrumental good." Instrumental good towards a desire is "instrumental good" like money. Thus, money is an "instrumental good" for another purpose because it produces something beyond itself. Instrumental good means because it further produces a good, "intrinsic good" is a good for itself, "for the sake of" an object like money. "Intrinsic good" for him is "Eudemonia=happiness." This is what ethics and virtues are for the sake of the organizing principle. Eudemonia=happiness. Today we think of happiness as a feeling. It is not a feeling for Aristotle. Best translation for eudaimonia is "flourishing" or "living well." It is an active term and way of living for him thus, "excellence." Ultimate "intrinsic good" of "for the sake of." Eudaimonia is the last word for Aristotle. Can also mean fulfillment. Idea of nature was thought to be fixed in Greece convention is a variation. What he means is ethics is loose like "wealth is good but some people are ruined by wealth." EN isn't formula but a rough outline. Ethics is not precise; the nature of subject won't allow it. When you become a "good person" you don't think it out, you just do it out of habit!

You can have ethics without religion for Aristotle. Nothing in his EN is about the afterlife. He doesn't believe in the universal good for all people at all times like Plato and Socrates. The way he thought about character of agent, "thinking about the good." In addition, Aristotle talked about character traits. Good qualities of a person who would act well. Difference between benevolent acts and a benevolent person. If you have good character, you don't need to follow rules. Aretç=virtue, in Greek not religious connotation but anything across the board meaning "excellence" high level of functioning, a peak. Like a musical virtuoso. Ethical virtue is ethical excellence, which is the "good like." In Plato, ethics has to do with quality of soul defining what to do instead of body like desires and reason. For Aristotle these are not two separate entities.

To be good is how we live with other people, not just focus on one individual. Virtue can't be a separate or individual trait. Socrates said same the thing. Important concept for Aristotle, good upbringing for children is paramount if you don't have it, you are a lost cause. Being raised well is "good fortune" a child can't choose their upbringing. Happenstance is a matter of chance.

Pleasure cannot be an ultimate good. Part of the "good life" involves external goods like money, one can't attain "good life" if one is poor and always working. Socrates said material goods don't matter, then he always mooched off of his friends! Aristotle surmises that the highest form of happiness is contemplation. In Aristotle's Rhetoric, he lists several ingredients for attaining eudaimonia. Prosperity, self-sufficiency, etc., is important, thus, if you are not subject to other, competing needs. A long interesting list. It is common for the hoi polloi to say pleasure=happiness. Aristotle does not deny pleasure is good; however, it is part of a package of goods. Pleasure is a condition of the soul. In the animal world, biological beings react to pleasure and pain as usual. Humans as reasoning beings must pursue knowledge to fulfill human nature. It must be pleasurable to seek knowledge and other virtues and if it is not there is something wrong according to Aristotle. These are the higher pleasures and so you may have to put off lower pleasures for the sake of attaining "higher pleasures."

Phronçsis= "intelligence," really better to say "practical wisdom." The word practical helps here because the word Phronçsis for Aristotle is a term having to do with ethics, the choices that are made for the good. As a human being, you have to face choices about what to do and not to do. Phronçsis is going to be that capacity that power of the soul that when it is operating well will enable us to turn out well and that is why it is called practical wisdom. The practically wise person is somebody who knows how to live in such a way so that their life will turn out well, in a full package of "goods." For Aristotle, Phronçsis is not deductive or inductive knowledge like episteme; Phronçsis is not a kind of rational knowledge where you operate in either deduction or induction, you don't go thru "steps" to arrive at the conclusion. Therefore, Phronçsis is a special kind of capacity that Aristotle thinks operates in ethics. Only if you understand what Aristotle means by phronesis do you get a hold on the concept. My way of organizing it, it is Phronçsis that is a capacity that enables the virtues to manifest themselves.

What are the virtues? Phronçsis is the capacity of the soul that will enable the virtues to fulfill themselves. Virtue ethics is the characteristics of a person that will bring about a certain kind of moral living, and that is exactly what the virtues are. The virtues are capacities of a person to act well. All of the virtues can be organized by way of this basic power of the soul called Phronçsis. There are different virtues, but it is the capacity of Phronçsis that enables these virtues to become activated. Basic issue is to find the "mean" between extremes; this is how Aristotle defines virtues.

Humans are not born with the virtues; we learn them and practice them habitually. "We reach our complete perfection through habit." Aristotle says we have a natural potential to be virtuous and through learning and habit, we attain them. Learn by doing according to Aristotle and John Dewey. Then it becomes habitual like playing a harp. Learning by doing is important for Aristotle. Hexis= "state," "having possession." Theoria= "study." The idea is not to know what virtue is but to become "good." Emphasis on finding the balance of the mean. Each virtue involves four basic points.

1. Action or circumstance. Such as risk of losing one's life.
2. Relevant emotion or capacity. Such as fear and pain.
3. Vices of excess and vices of deficiency in the emotions or the capacities. Such as cowardice is the excess vice of fear, recklessness is the excess deficiency.
4. Virtue as a "mean" between the vices and deficiencies. Such as courage as the "mean."

No formal rule or "mean" it depends on the situation and is different for different people as well. For example--one should eat 3,000 calories a day. Well depends on the health and girth of the person, and what activity they are engaged in. It is relative to us individually.
All Aristotle's qualifications are based on individual situations and done with knowledge of experience. Some things are not able to have a "mean" like murder and adultery because these are not "goods."
Akrasia= "incontinence" really "weakness of the will. Socrates thought that all virtues are instances of intelligence or Phronçsis. Aristotle criticizes Socrates idea of virtue, virtue is not caused by state of knowledge it is more complicated. Aristotle does not think you have to have a reasoned principle in the mind and then do what is right, they go together.

The distinctions between continent and incontinent persons, and moderate (virtue) and immoderate (not virtuous) persons is as follows:

1. Virtue. Truly virtuous people do not struggle to be virtuous, they do it effortlessly, very few people in this category, and most are in #2 and #3.
2. Ethical strength. Continence. We know what is right thing to do but struggle with our desires.
3. Ethical weakness. This is akrasia incontinence. Happens in real life.
4. Vice. The person acts without regret of his bad actions.

What does Aristotle mean by "fully virtuous"? Ethical strength is not virtue in the full sense of the term. Ethical weakness is not a full vice either. This is the critique against Socrates idea that "Knowledge equals virtue." No one can knowingly do the wrong thing. Thus, Socrates denies appetites and desires. Aristotle understands that people do things that they know are wrong, Socrates denies this. Socrates says if you know the right thing you will do it, Aristotle disagrees. The law is the social mechanism for numbers 2, 3, 4. A truly virtuous person is their own moral compass.

I recommend Aristotle's works to anyone interested in obtaining a classical education, and those interested in philosophy. Aristotle is one of the most important philosophers and the standard that all others must be judged by.

I read this book for a graduate seminar on Aristotle. I think Aristotle's ethics is his most seminal work in philosophy. In the early 1960's virtue ethics came to fore. It is a retrieval of Aristotle. It has very close parallels to the ancient Chinese philosophy of Confucius and the modern philosophy espoused in the 1970's called Communitarianism.

For Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics, (EN) is about human life in an embodied state. Area of inquirery for EN is "good" this is his phenomenology. What does "good" mean? He suggests good means "a desired end." Something desirable. Means towards these ends. Such as money is good, so one can buy food to eat because "eating is good." In moral philosophy distinction between "intrinsic good" vs. "instrumental good." Instrumental good towards a desire is "instrumental good" like money. Thus, money is an "instrumental good" for another purpose because it produces something beyond itself. Instrumental good means because it further produces a good, "intrinsic good" is a good for itself, "for the sake of" an object like money. "Intrinsic good" for him is "Eudemonia=happiness." This is what ethics and virtues are for the sake of the organizing principle. Eudemonia=happiness. Today we think of happiness as a feeling. It is not a feeling for Aristotle. Best translation for eudaimonia is "flourishing" or "living well." It is an active term and way of living for him thus, "excellence." Ultimate "intrinsic good" of "for the sake of." Eudaimonia is the last word for Aristotle. Can also mean fulfillment. Idea of nature was thought to be fixed in Greece convention is a variation. What he means is ethics is loose like "wealth is good but some people are ruined by wealth." EN isn't formula but a rough outline. Ethics is not precise; the nature of subject won't allow it. When you become a "good person" you don't think it out, you just do it out of habit!

You can have ethics without religion for Aristotle. Nothing in his EN is about the afterlife. He doesn't believe in the universal good for all people at all times like Plato and Socrates. The way he thought about character of agent, "thinking about the good." In addition, Aristotle talked about character traits. Good qualities of a person who would act well. Difference between benevolent acts and a benevolent person. If you have good character, you don't need to follow rules. Aretç=virtue, in Greek not religious connotation but anything across the board meaning "excellence" high level of functioning, a peak. Like a musical virtuoso. Ethical virtue is ethical excellence, which is the "good like." In Plato, ethics has to do with quality of soul defining what to do instead of body like desires and reason. For Aristotle these are not two separate entities.

To be good is how we live with other people, not just focus on one individual. Virtue can't be a separate or individual trait. Socrates said same the thing. Important concept for Aristotle, good upbringing for children is paramount if you don't have it, you are a lost cause. Being raised well is "good fortune" a child can't choose their upbringing. Happenstance is a matter of chance.

Pleasure cannot be an ultimate good. Part of the "good life" involves external goods like money, one can't attain "good life" if one is poor and always working. Socrates said material goods don't matter, then he always mooched off of his friends! Aristotle surmises that the highest form of happiness is contemplation. In Aristotle's Rhetoric, he lists several ingredients for attaining eudaimonia. Prosperity, self-sufficiency, etc., is important, thus, if you are not subject to other, competing needs. A long interesting list. It is common for the hoi polloi to say pleasure=happiness. Aristotle does not deny pleasure is good; however, it is part of a package of goods. Pleasure is a condition of the soul. In the animal world, biological beings react to pleasure and pain as usual. Humans as reasoning beings must pursue knowledge to fulfill human nature. It must be pleasurable to seek knowledge and other virtues and if it is not there is something wrong according to Aristotle. These are the higher pleasures and so you may have to put off lower pleasures for the sake of attaining "higher pleasures."

Phronçsis= "intelligence," really better to say "practical wisdom." The word practical helps here because the word Phronçsis for Aristotle is a term having to do with ethics, the choices that are made for the good. As a human being, you have to face choices about what to do and not to do. Phronçsis is going to be that capacity that power of the soul that when it is operating well will enable us to turn out well and that is why it is called practical wisdom. The practically wise person is somebody who knows how to live in such a way so that their life will turn out well, in a full package of "goods." For Aristotle, Phronçsis is not deductive or inductive knowledge like episteme; Phronçsis is not a kind of rational knowledge where you operate in either deduction or induction, you don't go thru "steps" to arrive at the conclusion. Therefore, Phronçsis is a special kind of capacity that Aristotle thinks operates in ethics. Only if you understand what Aristotle means by phronesis do you get a hold on the concept. My way of organizing it, it is Phronçsis that is a capacity that enables the virtues to manifest themselves.

What are the virtues? Phronçsis is the capacity of the soul that will enable the virtues to fulfill themselves. Virtue ethics is the characteristics of a person that will bring about a certain kind of moral living, and that is exactly what the virtues are. The virtues are capacities of a person to act well. All of the virtues can be organized by way of this basic power of the soul called Phronçsis. There are different virtues, but it is the capacity of Phronçsis that enables these virtues to become activated. Basic issue is to find the "mean" between extremes; this is how Aristotle defines virtues.

Humans are not born with the virtues; we learn them and practice them habitually. "We reach our complete perfection through habit." Aristotle says we have a natural potential to be virtuous and through learning and habit, we attain them. Learn by doing according to Aristotle and John Dewey. Then it becomes habitual like playing a harp. Learning by doing is important for Aristotle. Hexis= "state," "having possession." Theoria= "study." The idea is not to know what virtue is but to become "good." Emphasis on finding the balance of the mean. Each virtue involves four basic points.

1. Action or circumstance. Such as risk of losing one's life.
2. Relevant emotion or capacity. Such as fear and pain.
3. Vices of excess and vices of deficiency in the emotions or the capacities. Such as cowardice is the excess vice of fear, recklessness is the excess deficiency.
4. Virtue as a "mean" between the vices and deficiencies. Such as courage as the "mean."

No formal rule or "mean" it depends on the situation and is different for different people as well. For example--one should eat 3,000 calories a day. Well depends on the health and girth of the person, and what activity they are engaged in. It is relative to us individually.
All Aristotle's qualifications are based on individual situations and done with knowledge of experience. Some things are not able to have a "mean" like murder and adultery because these are not "goods."
Akrasia= "incontinence" really "weakness of the will. Socrates thought that all virtues are instances of intelligence or Phronçsis. Aristotle criticizes Socrates idea of virtue, virtue is not caused by state of knowledge it is more complicated. Aristotle does not think you have to have a reasoned principle in the mind and then do what is right, they go together.

The distinctions between continent and incontinent persons, and moderate (virtue) and immoderate (not virtuous) persons is as follows:

1. Virtue. Truly virtuous people do not struggle to be virtuous, they do it effortlessly, very few people in this category, and most are in #2 and #3.
2. Ethical strength. Continence. We know what is right thing to do but struggle with our desires.
3. Ethical weakness. This is akrasia incontinence. Happens in real life.
4. Vice. The person acts without regret of his bad actions.

What does Aristotle mean by "fully virtuous"? Ethical strength is not virtue in the full sense of the term. Ethical weakness is not a full vice either. This is the critique against Socrates idea that "Knowledge equals virtue." No one can knowingly do the wrong thing. Thus, Socrates denies appetites and desires. Aristotle understands that people do things that they know are wrong, Socrates denies this. Socrates says if you know the right thing you will do it, Aristotle disagrees. The law is the social mechanism for numbers 2, 3, 4. A truly virtuous person is their own moral compass.

I recommend Aristotle's works to anyone interested in obtaining a classical education, and those interested in philosophy. Aristotle is one of the most important philosophers and the standard that all others must be judged by.

It would be helpful if Amazon didn't pool together reviews from different translations. Note to Amazon: the customer reviews can be very helpful and have motivated me to purchase many books. But reviews for widely translated books should be specific to the translation. Otherwise they become worthless.

This may very well be one of the most important books I have read this year ... or the past few years.

I purchased "Last Child in the Woods" right after I heard Richard Louv interviewed on a local radio program. I was so moved by his message and impressed with the breadth of his knowledge and depth of experience. And it all translates well in the book.

"Last Child..." feels more like a conversation than a text(book). It's just that comfortable and open. Yet it very strikingly paints a picture of what is currently happening to children and our world as well as what may yet happen if nothing is done to reverse "nature deficit disorder". But, more importantly, there are also bright examples of hope and suggestions as to what we can do, as individuals and in larger groups, to cultivate appreciation of -- and cooperation with -- the natural world.

Anyone who wants to awaken a love of nature in their kids, or simply deepen their own nature walk, should give this inspiring book a chance.

I whole-heartedly recommend this important book. Richard Louv's book sparked a movement that had been simmering under the surface for some time -- with the rapid growth of technology in recent years, our children are spending less and less time outside.

I work with Green Hour, a campaign of the National Wildlife Federation, that aims to inspire parents to encourage their kids to turn off the computer, IPod and TV and GET OUTSIDE! Check out www.greenhour.org to find the tools you need as a parent to help fight nature deficit disorder.

Childhood obesity, ADHD, and basic developmental problems have been associated to this broken link with the outdoors.

The new edition is great -- there are ideas in the back for getting kids outdoors...

Anne Keisman
Green Hour

Louv claims that children spend less and less time outdoors because of parental fears, electronic toys and a variety of other reasons. He explains what the implications are for children and adults: attention problems, disconnectedness with the world, lower productivity. Louv makes the case for why and how parents, teachers and others should help children connect with nature. I really liked the book overall, although I felt like some of the chapters could have been more concise. The second addition has an appendix with a concise practical list of things parents can do.

From the first chapter, this book has had a tangible impact on my life. I grew up in a rural area but now live in NYC and had sensed, but did not fully realize how important being in nature is for my physical, spiritual and mental health. This book has re-opened my senses to the truth that I am a part of nature and even though I live in a city, I have the obligation to care for the nature around me. I also work with children and am newly inspired to incorporate nature into all aspects of education.

The only critique I have is that at times it feels like Louv is repetitive, and the directives about what can be done are sometimes broad, but the overall effect has been to inspire me to get out and DO something about the problem.

I'm young enough that I still get called "kid" by my friends' parents, and when I saw the cover of this book in the store, with the kid holding a frog, I instantly felt like this book was about someone just like me. When I started reading, I felt so even more.

I've lived in forests and next to creeks all my life, but today, I look around at my friends and I see that most of my generation wasn't as lucky as me. They're all scared of bugs, (even moths!) they adamantly refuse to swim in the lake, (won't even touch salt water) they pick their way slowly and clumsily through the bushes trying not to touch anything... one friend brings an entire fold-out kitchen with her whenever we go camping. (At least she actually goes.) They call me "extreme", when all I did to become this way was catch some frogs, build some stick forts and flip over a few rocks to see what lived underneath.

It took the contrast of moving to the city to show me that there was a problem. I'm not a parental person, but looking around at my friends and peers and seeing them nature-handicapped.. it sucks. I don't want more people to have this problem. And though I haven't finished the book, every sentence has really resonated with me. This is extremely valuable information.
Kids have to know what frogs smell like, where to find snails and snakes, how to hop down a wet trail without getting muddy, or climb up a steep slope in the forest; they have to feed squirrels in the park and learn to fall down and not notice they've scraped their elbow. They should be learning to build things out of branches and leaves and rocks. They should be watching the animals. They need a secret place.

The memories I have of playing on the wilderness are some of the best I have. If they don't learn how now, they'll be too afraid to try later! And then Wall-E happens.

This is an excellent textbook and well worth the price. It's more like a history of art and culture.

I purchased this book for my Graphic Design history class. The book is well written and it is very informative.

i bought this product as new. i could tell the book had not been or had hardly been opened b/c of the sound it makes when you open a new book. the pages are clean and crisp. it was only the book jacket that protects the hard cover that had a few marks on it, but overall i'm very happy with it. =)

This book provides an excellent resource on the graphic design industry with in-depth information on typography and how different art movements affected graphic design. It is well written and has great pictures with detailed descriptions. I recommend it for every graphic designer's personal library.

After using all the editions, the latest isn't up to the late Phil Meggs' standards. In its attempt to
be concise and concept oriented, it omits much cultural and marginal information that was
interesting and flavorful. This edition is not as delicious as the others. I'm thinking of switching
textbooks for my students.

This is a very interesting book about a little-known golf match between two famous golf pros and two amateurs. It is an easy read with some interesting historical facts about the evolution of professional golf in the U.S.

You can almost see the course contours, smell the salt air and feel the lush grass underfoot in this epic depiction of the towering talents of four larger-than-life golf heroes. If this were fiction, the reader would beguiled by the sheer momentum in this solitary golf match . . . but it is absolutely true!

I caddied once in my youth for one of the golfing giants prtrayed in this book and later in life interviewed one of the players in THE MATCH so I have a more-than-passing interest in this memorable tale. Memories of the bygone days of renowned amateur golfers, the honor of the game and competition that goes far beyond money burst forth from every page of this book that is detined to be a classic.

A lifetime of golfing recollections washed over me in a book that I could not put down. This book would be a marvelous gift for every golfer in your world.

I found this incredible interview regarding how the game of Golf has changed over the years. You wouldn't believe the evolution! If you have any interest in the history of Golf, this is a must read. If you want to become even more knowledgeable on the subject, scroll to the bottom of the interview and get in touch with the author. After reading, I guarantee you will be able to lead the most interesting discussions and impress your friends!

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/interviewroden.html

Mark Frost leaves you breathless as he paints an unmatched literary canvas with words--you can hear it, see it, smell it, feel the tension. Throughout he intersperses snippets and bios of the players so you can't wait to get back to the action. Each time I put it down I looked forward to picking it up and reading it again. I have read also The Greatest Game Ever Played and The Grand Slam. Both excellent, but "The Match" to me was one of the richest literary creations on golf I have ever read.

In The Greatest Game Ever Played, Mark Frost provides a brilliant account of 20-year-old Francis Ouimet's 18-hole playoff victory over Britons Harry Vardon and Ted Ray in the 1913 U.S. Open at The Country Club in Brookline, Massachusetts, where Ouimet once caddied. That said, I think his account of an 18-hole match at Cypress Point Golf Club on the Monterey Peninsula (just before the annual "Crosby Clambake" in 1956) between professionals Ben Hogan and Byron Nelson against amateurs Harvie Ward and Ken Venturi describes a match at least as significant. His is certainly the best book on golf competition that I have ever read.

With the curiosity of a cultural anthropologist and the skills of a master storyteller, Frost establishes and then explores a context within which four of the greatest golfers in the 1950s agreed to a "friendly match." They knew each other, respected each other, and enjoyed each other's company. However, in his own unique way, each was a ferocious competitor, especially when engaged in match play competition. Frost provides a hole-by-hole account (the primary story line) but he also brings to life each of the four competitors, explaining their respective backgrounds, personalities, and motivations while stressing their passion for the game of golf. The supporting cast includes Eddie Lowery who, when years old, caddied for Ouimet during his Open victory and is now a wealthy car dealer and among the leaders of the USGA. Also George Coleman, also a multi-millionaire as well as a member of Cypress Point who accepts Lowery's challenge to select any two professionals to compete against Ward and Venturi.

Credit Frost with accomplishing two separate but related objectives: to provide a riveting account of the match itself over an especially challenging as well as beautiful course designed by Alister MacKenzie, and, to place the match within a much larger frame-of-reference that includes the emergence of professional golf following the retirement of Bob Jones, real estate development of the Monterey Peninsula area, and the evolving controversy about the meaning of the term "amateur," given the fact that both Venturi and Ward were two of Lowery's salaried employees who devoted almost all of their time and energy to competitive golf.

Even those who have little (if any) interest in golf will thoroughly enjoy reading this book. It has everything: a full cast of colorful characters, several compelling story lines, multi-dimensional social commentary, and following the conclusion of the match, an "Afterward" that provides what Paul Harvey calls "the rest of the story" concerning the four competitors and their two supporters. Then in an Appendix, Frost provides historical information about the Peninsula before focusing his attention on Marion Hollins and her involvement in both competitive golf and efforts to realize her "oversized dreams" for the area.

This is one of very few works of non-fiction that I have read in recent years that created in me a growing sense of sadness as I approached the last few pages. I really enjoyed it that much? Yes. In fact, I began to re-read it the next day and although I knew the outcome of the match, enjoyed the second reading at least as much as the first. Thank you, Mark Frost.

i was one of the few among my peers who had never read one of the Maus books. When i finally got around to it, i was blown away by its excellence. This is a masterpiece (and i do not use the term lightly). Do yourself a favor and don't miss it.

I must say that I find this work hard to properly describe in terms of how I feel about it. I think that it was a fascinating look at one man's experience in the Holocaust, but an equally important aspect is Art's interaction with his father during their conversations. This seems like an honest portrayal, especially since Art isn't afraid to include things that may make him look bad (he isn't always the most sympathetic son). I think connecting the story of what happened then, and how it's effects are apparent for the rest of a person's life (although different people reacted in different ways) is interesting. The way this is written is especially effective, because it truly feels like Vladek is telling you his story first hand.
As for the artwork, although it isn't my favorite style, it seems to fit for this story. The simple, unpolished look is compatible with this story which is honest and raw. Finally, I would like to add that the second installment of this comic is darker, and more depressing and sad at times, but once you read Maus I, you must (and will want to) read Maus II in order to feel any closure with the story.

As a Jew Living in Israel, holocaust related books are important to read, but it's hard to do it actually. I can remember several holocaust-era semi-biographic novels which are great but those are the exceptions. Most of the books are a bit bothersome though true.
Maus just captured me.I consider it one of the best books I've ever read in my life. It was just breath-taking, adding to that the fact that this was my first graphic novel ever, not to say first comic ever.
I gave it to my wife, her parents, brother and so on. The book came back to me after 6 month. all worn out.
The book touched me in the deepest levels, and was able to do what many other holocaust books tried to do and failed. Take you inside one of the the darkest eras of human kind. You NEED to read to. You have to read it.

Maus, A Survivor's Tale is a son's pictorial version of his father's story of survival during WWII.

Both haunting and mesmerizing, sometimes funny and touching, this is a story of perseverance and about what the Jews had to suffer through at the hands of the Nazis in WWII Poland. Spiegleman never sugar-coats what his father had to endure in order to keep he and his wife alive. A true work of art.

Horribly distorts the true suffering of WWII victims. The Poles who are portrayed as pigs and the Jews who are portrayed as RATS is not a good beginning. The Poles and the Jews suffered the most. The Polish Catholics lost 3 million, in what has become known as the Forgotten Holocaust. The Poles lost another 2 Million to Stalins barbaric Gulags. When the Nazis were defeated, the Soviet Communists took over and were more barbaric to the Poles than the Nazis, although both brutally oppressive and cruel to the Polish nation. Maus/Rat, whatever you call it, uses a horrible and untrue depiction of the Poles. The Poles were the first to go to Auschwitz and die. Polish teachers, school children (giggling and playing having no idea what horror awaited them, my God), professors, nuns, priests were the first victims of Auschwits, for the wars first 2 years. Jews were not taken to auschwitz until May of 1942! The Germans had already slaughtered 1 Million Polish Catholics before the Jewish campaign even started! The Poles still defide Hitler saving more Jews than any other country. What makes this more incredible is that, Only in Poland were entire Polish-Catholic families, towns and villages executed for, as little as, handing a Jew an apple. in Denmark, Sweden, Hollannd, Norway, a slap on the hand was given - that's it! These countries, also had some of the most brutal Nazi organizations,.i.e., they collaborated eith the Nazis, as Poland DID NOT! For a true and purely objective learning, and not one man's version, bias or hate towards the tortured Poles, and other nations, read a short but to the point book with tons of info, perfect for Jr, High, High School and Adults: Andrew Hempels" Poland in WORLD WAR II; also Richard lukas' The FORGOTTEN HOLOCAUST;Poles Under Nazi Occupation (talks about everyone's suffering); finally, and a great litttle book on Auschwitz with big returns is AUSCHWITZ by Sybille Steinbacher. Steinbacher's book is easy to read and very clear; gets to the point and very objective. These books are so centered and incredibly objective,i.e., no embellishments, just truth and fact. The Rat book is a despicable generalization and distortion of truth. Scholars and Educators: Please, be sensitive and 'Take the bull by the horns.' Enjoy the summer - you.ve earned it.

This textbook was so well written and put together, that I'm going to take the course that deals with the second volume. The pictures of artwork were amazing.

Good book with a lot of images and art knowledge. Good for reading to understanding more about art.

I am a History Professor at a small, Christian, liberal arts college on the outskirts of Chicago. I have used this book, both the fourth edition and the fifth edition, in my Historical Methods course for the last four years. The fifth edition is a great improvement over the fouth.

Overall, the book provides an excellent introduction to what historians do and how we do it. It defines primary and secondary sources well and provides a good list of questions to ask about each type of source. It talks about the types of writing assignments that are used in history and how to approach them. It gives a straightforward explanation of each step in the process of writing a research paper. It has a nice explanation of what plagiarism is (although like most scholars she describes it as a form of theft rather than fraud) and how to avoid it. Finally, it gives University of Chicago forms for footnotes and bibliographies in the back.

When compared to the other introductions to history writing on the market--and I've looked at over half a dozen of them--Rampolla's book is shorter, more to the point, and less expensive than all of them (MUCH less expensive than some). The publisher is to be commended.

Very helpful guide to writing about history, or anything else. Helpful for both the undergraduate and graduate student who wants a refresher.

This book is a pocket guide and lives up to the name. Everything is summarized and made simple. Sometimes the simplicity leads to confusion, but the guide acts as a reference to solve the problem by finding another source. Overall, by itself the guide is okay, but utilized with other manuals, it is a great tool.

As a high school history teacher, I've created several writing tip sheets and links to writing websites for my students. All of these efforts were intended to help the motivated improve their understanding of good writing as well as their skills in writing.

The Pocket Guide to Writing in History replaces all of my earlier efforts in one handy resource. With an introduction to research, note taking, formulating and supporting points with evidence, citations & bibliographies, it's an excellent guide for advanced high school and college students in writing in-class essays or lengthy, long-term research papers.

The Guide briefly considers the different types of history writing assignments, and offers unique suggestions for preparation and execution for each format. Its primary referencing focus is on the Chicago style of foot/endnotes, the style most widely used in history. Plus, the 5th edition includes more up-to-date citation format examples for internet sources, a big improvement from the 4th edition.

Writing is a key skill in this discipline, but most teachers have little class time in which to teach it. As a stand alone student resource, the Guide is the best option I've found. It could also be used in class for lessons on specific writing skills, or as a supplement to a major research paper assignment. I plan to recommend The Guide to all of my Advanced Placement students this year. Highly recommended.

Amazingly enough, I don't know Dr. Rampolla, but that won't stop me from adding my praise for this little gem of a book. Clearly and concisely written, this slim guide covers the important aspects of the study of history. From evaluating sources to documenting the sources you've found, it's a marvelous little tool for students. Don't leave home for your next history class without this book.

A good effort I must say it in short describes zombie warfare first the outbrack then the panic that follows and finally the determination with which the remaining uninfected population fight back against the invader. There is also almost none of this "superman syndrome" stuff that permeates everything Science Fiction related these days. Over the course of the narrative it is clear that if humanity is going to survive it is going to have to fight as a team.

If I had to pick my two favorite installments it's the exploits of one professional bodyguard on a "Long Island" near New York basically a morality tale about how celebrity is irrelevant in the new world and the story of how Cuba of all places becomes the "arsenal of victory". If some point of views like the former computer nerd and Hiroshima survivor that become the guardians of Japan seem far fetched...well it is a book about zombies and if I were writing a book about the subject I'd have some fun with it too.

It is an excellent book providing a balanced account of the war from all fronts from land based armies to people who spent the entire war on the Open Ocean and even outer space. I would even go so far as to say that it was too short I wanted more.

If I have one compliant however is that whereas most books that run along this kind of theme are usually hampered by a single viewpoint this one while it is good is too cosmopolitan. It seemed that I was just getting to like one character then that point of view would end and we would be on to someone else a different theater of the war. This is not a bad things its just sometimes it can be abrupt.

Overall-Wonderful book I look forward to further installments if there are any.

This follow-up to the Zombie Survival Guide is less campy but some of the survivor interviews contain just enough snark to make you shake your head in amusement. One aspect that is fun is the interviewer narrating his own actions, typically in response to questions from the interviewee.

You get so many different types of people answering questions about their time during the war that you will no doubt have some you hate and some you love. There is a smattering of all types of people being interviewed and if you cross one that doesn't float your boat then you know it'll be over in a couple of pages. This isn't the type of book that has you getting attached to any characters, it is more like a voyeuristic pleasure of other people's misfortune.

Max Brooks, World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War (Crown, 2006)

If Studs Terkel were not still alive, I have little doubt that buy now, we'd have already had the companion volume to this book, telling the story of the zombie war from the other side. But Studs still clings to life (he's ninety-six as I write this, and for all I know he's still writing), and so we have only one side of the great Zombie War depicted here. Still, for those of us who lived through it, perhaps that's enough.

What, you don't remember the zombie war? Well, I'm not entirely surprised. Fewer and fewer people do. It's amazing how short our collective memory is. That's part of the reason Max Brooks wrote this book-- so that people wouldn't forget, that they'd have something to hold on to, some artifact they can consult. It's the same reason Terkel wrote his oral history of World War II; we all learn the dates and places in history class, but who ever dredges it up again, unless they go on to become history professors and propagate the same information? Terkel's book tells us what the battlegrounds were like from the perspectives of those, most of whom are now gone, who were actually there. So does Brooks'. No one who reads this will ever hear "Yonkers" and just think of a date and an event. You get an actual veteran telling the story and you can hear the explosions. You can taste the dirt. You can hear the moaning of the enemy. And Brooks captures it, as he captures the many other voices in this tome, by standing back and letting these folks tell it like they saw it.

This is an impressive compendium of voices, now that I'm n the subject. Men and women from around the globe, from the northern wastes of Canada to the South Pole (with the obvious exception of Iceland), offer their stories here. Some of them are still understandably bitter. Some are just angry. Some resilient, some defeated, some poignant. All of them together, give the clearest picture of a global conflict I've ever run across. Max Brooks is, truly, to be commended for his investigative work on this project, and his desire not to let the Zombie War fade until it becomes nothing more than a bad nightmare. For, as we all know, those who do not repeat history are doomed to learn from it. ****

i found thst this book to be a well done novel that gave true insight into this fictional event

I was so pleasantly suprised by the quality of Mr. Brook's second book. He clearly has done his homework with so many little details in this story. His understanding of governments, military equipment, geography and human nature are all evident in this story. This creates a rich tapestry on which to superimpose an epidemic of undead cannibals.

One of the best aspects of this story is that Mr. Brook's has truly taken a world's eye view of the conflict. He relates narratives from sources all over the globe including China, Japan, Iran, Indian, the Artic and the good old USA.

A good yarn, if maneating reanimated corpses overrunning the world is your thing!