Social Sciences Books

I remember when a guy in Nebraska went to death roll and was killed. He hurt a bother of a school mate of mine and I could not wait to he died. When he did I felt happy but after reading this book it made me have second thoughts for it was as if I killed that killer for wishing for his death like Helen said "An eye for an eye" now I think to kill another is not the answer and more should be work tore forgiveness. That is what this book will help you to think twice about the death penalty and see life is worth living.

This book written by a pseudo-Catholic who allows her readers to believe that justice is "vengeance" or "revenge." It is neither. Justice cannot be evil in its essence, for it would be then universally the same all the time, and evil to everyone. Justice provides one solution for society as a whole, not for individual members in every case. Justice is kind to some parts of society, and necessarily unkind in others. It cannot always be everything to the whole. Even so, blind misunderstanding about Justice prevails and mankind convulses over judges and legislation providing rules regarding crime and punishment. Prejean's nunship does not represent the teaching of true justice under the Catholic banner, particularly. The innocent God-Man, Christ, also died under the death penalty. Christ did not resent nor teach that the death penalty was unjust. It was the law of the land. It was the Mosaic Law becoming the Catholic Law.

Nowhere does "sister" Prejean write the truth that Christ went willingly to His Passion and Death. Those who abandon the teachings of God commit crime also--not such a visible crime as murder, but a worse offense to God. It is not only the murderer who must be forgiven for his crimes against God's teaching, but those who teach falsehoods, such as Prejean. Prejean calls "admitting the murder" is "taking reponsibility," vaguely insinuating that a murderer thus fulfills his debt to God, but in reality, he has only "taken responsibility," only a first step, perhaps because he got caught. Only God knows if the penitent sought God's Mercy --and not man's-- for the murderer gives no sign. Nor does Prejean offer it.

Had the murderer been taught he must not only "take responsibility" but must [formally] confess to God [not to mankind] that his sorrow is true, [in the presence of one of Christ's officers of the Divine Court, a Confessor, i.e., a priest] then the families would have been comforted at the last. The duties of Prejean are unfinished, for herself and for the murderer; but they are far more than Prejean knows about, for she only teaches secularly that "responsibility" replaces repentance for breaking God's law. Responsible formal and private confession remains the vehicle for forgiveness from God (public confession only expresses charity to the families.)

The movie misleads all of society, both weak Catholics and unknowledgeable others that such admission is a "replacement for auricular confession." Pseudo-catholics do not know better, but ought to. They think secular confession (to mankind) is the new commandment of God. But it cannot be avoided --in the original (scripture) that Christ spoke what He taught, "Whosoever's sins ye shall forgive--they are forgiven them." Sinner speaks to Confessor. Auricular. Prejean feels better, thinks she has it right, but she was taught wrong. She passes her error onto society in its worst form, Naturalism. Unless the murderer seeks supernatural (Divine) Mercy and forgiveness, "I am sorry because I have first of all offended God, and secondly because I have offended Thy creatures, society," all the secular, or natural, justice on this earth will not help the murderer save his soul. The Prejean does not teach. The act of official confessing and absolving (by a priest) is absent and it is not implied.

Don't be fooled by secular catholicism. It is not Supernatural Catholicism. Prejean teaches a corporal work of mercy--to Visit the Prisoner, and substitutes a Beatitude, Clean of Heart (or "responsibility") for Confessing to God for an offense. What does the world learn?--to visit prisoners, to give up executing them (they never use "execute" in the movie--only "kill"). So prisoners never hear about repentance and confession. Viewers only observe that murderers squirm in their error and guilt in this world, never confess or obtain repentance, and never learn they, sinners too, must forgive someone who repents, as God does.

Things appear right in Prejean's world as she attempts to teach Naturalism and secular good works. Had she said to the murderer, "I, and all of us, need forgiveness, too, albeit not for murder," perhaps the murderer would have silently asked for grace to convert. Then the world could have known what the message is. It is not to abandon the death penalty--but to convert sinners, the real teaching of Christ, the purpose of His Sacrifice of His Life. As it is, the world, the story, and Prejean, all fail in justice and truth.

The "new nuns" such as Prejean substitute temporal (earthly) forgiveness and Naturalism. They give up Theism and Supernaturalism and souls languish with a loss of truth. There is a direct help (grace) from sacramental (supernatural) confession which alleviates all of mankind, but Prejean teaches that "supernatural forgiveness" is achieved by temporal means. She is subtly claiming that her corporal works of prayer, fasting, almsgiving, spiritual works of mercy, and suffering life's ills on behalf of the murderer are substitutes for his own such corporal works and that his mere "taking responsibility" becomes sufficient for absolving one from the mortal sins a sinner commits. Her chief example of such forgiveness comes by way of the use of "responsibility." This is a nebulous word which can stop along the way of "Okay, I did it--but I would do it again," or any other version of that admission. If anyone thinks that such a "responsibility" admission satisfies them, then they must also admit that it hardly satisfies God for His Good, His Mercy, His Love. Prejean's good intentions could actually condemn the prisoner to Hell for all eternity by omission. Is it worse to lose one's soul or one's body? The latter all will lose.

These corporal works are not salvific nor meritorious for anything more than natural grace (natural good) such as establishing hospitals or feeding one's neighbor. One receives supernatural grace, the kind that is meritorious for soul-saving (salvation) only when one performs these good works for God first--because God says so-- and THEN for man.

What people have difficulty to understand is that the unrepented crime is an offense against God, a blasphemy against Him, a sacrilege against His Word, whether it be disbelief in His Word, or a commission of harm to neighbor, both offenses and crimes, the latter a crime against God's creature, the former a crime far worse, directly an offense to God. We observe some criminals in their sorrow and remorse, and some who reach full contrition for God's sake, but we see victims and others who refuse God His First Command, "If you worship Me Alone, you will not disobey My commands."

The Mosaic Law from the Roman Catholic Missal; 1937, St. Andrew Abbey:
I am the Lord, thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt not have strange gods before Me. Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing thatis in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth. Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them.

Dead Man Walking

By: Helen Prejean


The nonfiction book by: Helen Prejean is an enlightening book about a nun who becomes a spiritual advisor for convicted killer of two teenagers, who is sentenced to the electric chair. In 1982 sister Helen Prejean became the spiritual advisor of Patrick Sonnier, the convicted killer of two teenagers who was sentenced to die in the electric chair of Louisiana's Angola state prison. In the months before Sonniers death, the Roman Catholic nun came to know a man who was as terrified as he was once terrifying. This book was entertaining and very memorable. In the book there are many argumentative statements about the electric chair. The chair was unjust but the chair had to be given to him. This book suggests that the eletriic chair isn't always effective but it does get the job done. Until reading this book most people don't understand how unjust the chair really is. There are many people who have lived through the chair and it is just like torture to keep putting them through the chair. This book has changed many thoughts about the electric chair because it has changed people's lives. And lastly this book is a great read and I suggest it to anyone who likes the mysteries of the prison life.

This book, written by a Catholic nun, is a powerful indictment of the death penalty in America. She describes in vivid detail her role as "spiritual adviser" to two death row inmates, and in graphic detail, describes their deaths at the hands of the state.

While steadfastly anti-capital punishment (how can we trust a government that screws up so much in other areas in the application of this ultimate punishment?), Sister Prejan does not shy away from discussing her views with the families of the victims, and does not shy away from presenting the families' views to the reader with dignity and respect. She describes how she goes on to form both an abolitionist and victims' rights group in Louisana. She also goes on to point out how much more costly it is to execute someone than to put them in jail for life with no possibility of parole.

It's difficult to imagine how one could expect forgiveness for people who have brutally murdered people. Sister Prejan does not lecture, it seems even she does not expect this to be possible for most. She does, however, put the thought in the reader's mind - how can one advocate abandoning our humanity to fall to the level of the killer, while at the same time showing their humanity back to us. Sad and disturbing, but one of the most important works on the subject ever published. Strongly recommended.

This is both a book and a movie that you need to interact with. Particularly in a day and age when there is a movement here in Canada to try to bring the death penalty back. The book is much more in depth than the movie. The book profiles the first three men that Sr. Prejean goes to the death chamber with as Spiritual Director. It profiles her mistakes as she journeys down this path for the first few times. She witnessed her first execution on April 5th, 1984 and she has been advocating against the death penalty since then.

The book does a great job of showing the disparity in how the death penalty is applied. It goes through the studies on its lack of effectiveness, and how for the most part, it is the poor and the African-American who are on death row. Even if you only read the appendices, the book will challenge you to view the death penalty in a different way.

The movie was the inspiration and starred Susan Sarandon. Sarandon was given the book while on a personal retreat at a monastery; she came home and gave the book to her partner, Tim Robbins, who directed the film. Together they approached Sr. Prejean, who went out and rented Bull Durham. She was a little leery of having them do the film, but after meeting with them went ahead with the project.

The film co-stars Sean Penn as Matthew Poncelet, a compilation of the 3 men in the book. The movie, while slow moving, is incredibly intense and draws you into the drama of waiting for a death when you know the date and time of that approaching death.

As an interesting aside, another good book is Forgiving the Dead Man Walking by Debbie Morris, who was one of the victims of Robert Lee Willie from the book. Debbie always said if they ever made a movie, Penn would have to play Willie because they looked so much alike.

So read the book and watch the movie, and if you want yet another challenging book, give Forgiving the Dead Man Walking a read also.

This was my first time learning qualitative research and I have found this book to be very good for the beginner, like me. It is written clearly and has many examples to clarify points.

I have recently read this book and found it very useful in terms of providing up to date references on most aspects of Qualitative Research. I found the chapters on Thematic analysis and coding very helpful indeed and wished that I had this book when engaged in my doctoral studies. I am pleased to refer researchers and students engaged in such work to carefully read this book. I plan to use it in an upcoming Journal paper that I am writing.

I used this as a reference during a Masters class. It was very useful when it came time to design my research project.

This was the set text for a post-grad qual methods course I did. It gives a good coverage of the basics but it is horrible to read, boring and dull. Get Patton's book instead, more depth of coverage and actually enjoyable to read. My copies of Patton and Miles and Huberman are dog-earred with use after finishing my thesis and I am wishing I had bought my own copy of Rubin & Rubin as well as the Bilham book but this one I have never picked up since I finished the course.

If you are in graduate school and decide to do your thesis as a qualitative research project, I would highly recommend this book. Even though the authors describe what qualitative research is, I would recommend that you read one of the texts they mention for the individual techniques. For example, even though it has a nice overview of case study, one should read Yin's book on case study research.

One of the common themes that appears in many writings of Spencer, Emerson, Steyn and others is that there are many Americans who, for one reason or another, are not proud to be Americans. Bawer alludes very strongly to that as well, and I believe he may even have been one of those people until his long term experience of living in Europe and seeing first hand the Islamization taking place there.

Americans (all Westerners, really) need to understand the total erosion of rights we take for granted being summarily squashed under Sharia. Bill of Rights? Fuhgeddaboudit! All men created equal? Not anymore!

As Bawer points out on almost every page, he is unabashedly and unashamedly gay, and the gay community must someday come to terms with the fact that right-wing America is going to do more to protect their civil rights than the liberals, who turn a blind eye to Muslim atrocities against gays in Europe and elsewhere. Civil unions don't provide much benefit when one's head is no longer in union with the rest of the body.

This was an illuminating book. While the author does have his prejudices against traditional Christians (he is a homosexual) he does recognize many important points that the liberal establishment is blind to (multi-culturalism so enfeebles a culture that it is taken over, Europe got into appeasement due to its interpretation of WWII, the groupthink of the Establishment causes problems to be ignored rather than solved. The book explains well current European culture, as well as how Europeans have more difficulty assimilating immigrants. One thing overlooked is how the gay rights cause looks to wind up helping the muslim conquest-- in seeking silencing political, nonviolent opposition to homosexuality, these activists have eroded the notion of free speech that others disapprove of. The Muslims appear to be mastering this concept to prevent opposition to their goals-- under the guise of "Islamophobia".

The Lesson-- If one erodes other people's 1st. Amendment rights, he will find his own rights eroded in turn. The book would be even better if the author recognized this.

I agree with much of what the more recent 4/5-star reviewers say about this book. Overall I found the book to be quite helpful in familiarizing the reader with the issues pointed out by the author, and it contains a fairly comprehensive survey of the kinds and nature of problems that exist in Europe because of the immigrant Muslim population. If nothing else, the book will impress upon the reader the absolute necessity for Westerners to take a very firm stand against the backwards thinking of Islam and the threat its beliefs, practices, and laws pose to civilized nations.

Here are my own comments and observations:

THE POSITIVE:
(1) The book is well-written in the sense that the author is quite literate and has an extensive vocabulary. His writing style is very readable.

(2) Bawer clearly is qualified to comment on the issues from experiential and anecdotal points of view. Some reviewers object that this work is not social science properly speaking, and I agree. However, I don't think the author purports his work to be considered as such. Nonetheless, Bawer still has a wealth of information to share with his readers, and there indeed is something useful to be gained from his observations.

(3) Bawer cites many examples of the problems he discusses, so the reader is left with a very clear picture of the issues.

(4) Bawer has lived in both the U.S. and in Europe, so he is in a position to understand their respective cultures and how they relate and differ. This understanding is beneficial to giving the reader a better insight into the cultural behaviors and mindset of each region.

THE NEGATIVE:
(1) The most glaring problem with this book is its lack of footnotes to document the many quotes and sources that Bawer uses. If he had to access those sources to obtain the information to begin with, then he clearly knows where the material is to be found. By failing to footnote his sources, he detracts somewhat from his credibility and he prevents the reader from accessing his sources to further investigate the issues.

(2) While the book's subtitle clearly pinpoints the focus of his work (Muslims), in fact a substantial portion of the book deals with the reasons why Europeans in general are distrustful of and antagonistic towards Americans. This information is certainly useful, but it does not deal directly with Bawer's thesis, in my opinion.

(3) Bawer makes it clear from the beginning of the book that he is actively gay, and he periodically makes references to issues that center around homosexuals rather than Muslims. Again, those issues are not germane to his thesis, and at times he comes across as making a not-so-subtle pitch for gay "rights." To the extent that Islam formally sanctions the mistreatment of homosexuals, Bawer is staying within his thesis parameters. However, at times he clearly strays beyond them.

(4) As one other reviewer noted, Bawer's material--while extensive--is not really in a format that makes it easy to reference. There *is* an index in the back of the book, but it is not extensive and detailed.

If you're looking for a scientific treatment of the subject matter, you won't find it in this book. However, if you're looking for a substantial look into the issue from a personal point of view--one that is validated by the author's lived experience--then I submit you will be quite satisfied with this work. I borrowed it from my local library rather than purchasing it. If there had been proper documenting of sources, I would have bought it in a heartbeat, for it would have proved to be a tremendously useful resource.

It is true that most European coutries have ignored the issue of immigration and integration for far too long, causing a certain ghettoization and the emergence of parallel societies. Particularly immigrants of Islamic countries frequently hardly speak their host country's language, perform poorly in school and often end up unemployed. There are also problems with violence, fanaticism and the oppression of women in this particular class of population (left-behind muslim immigrants).

However, it is populist, inconsiderate and hasty to blame Islam for all of this and to predict Europe's downfall (or even the entire West's!). There are several other explanations for intolerance and violence among Muslims in Europe: a large share of them is poorly educated (high correlation with violence and fanaticism for low education in all population segments), socioeconomically disadvantaged and often unemployed (again high correlation with violence and fanaticism for those attributes regardless of religion or ethnicity). There is no evidence that poor, uneducated, unemployed Muslims have a higher crime rate or affinity to extremist ideologies than e.g. poor, uneducated, unemployed Catholic French or Atheist Germans. This is an interesting and important question / field of study, but the author does nothing to bring to light some empric evidence from comprehensible trustworthy sources.

Also, many European countries have failed to design processes for integration (education about rights and duties, language classes, coaching), relocating immigrants to gloomy suburbs with already high crime rate. This is another factor that is hardly mentioned in the book.

Rather than providing new insights based on a thorough analysis, this book is merely exploiting xenophobia and airing itself as the skryer of a dark future...every bit as intolerant and undifferentiated as the fanaticism it attacks.

There are many who will blast this book as being antiMuslim propaganda. That is complete nonsense (but as the author points out in the book, anything less than complete submission to the teachings of Islam will be viewed by Islamic extremists as being antiMuslim). This is a book that desperately needed to be written, and now needs to be read by every freedom loving person in the precariously free world. It is interesting to learn the bio of the author: he is an openly gay man originally from New York who, after taking the Christian Right to task for several years, decided to live in the Netherlands with his partner in order to experience a whole new way of life and the freedom to be gay in a culture that warmly embraces homosexuality. In other words, he's not a Coulter-O'Reilly clone who believes that the world needs to be ruled by the Bible and that the US is the only nation of the planet. We needed an unbiased, nondogmatic view on this subject, and for the most part Mr. Bawer gives us just that. As we read in his book, the evolution of the Europe to which he first moves (a lovely, accepting if a bit snobbish and antiAmerican place) into a callipate in all but name is laid bare for all to see. Like many of the other reviewers, I wish that Mr. Bawer had included endnotes if for nothing else but to allow the reader to view the ghastly comments of the political and intellectual elite of Europe in their own words (I defy anyone to read the comment of Unni Wikan who basically said that if Norwegian women wish to avoid being raped, they must learn to conform to the Muslim ideal. In other words, nonMuslim women must put on a burka or else face their "deserved" punishment of being assaulted). This is a very scary book because it is true. The fate of France as a Muslim state under sharia is all but certain, and most Scandinavian countries seem hellbent on following Her path. I enjoyed Mr. Bawer's writing style (other than lack of footnotes) very much; he makes the reader feel as if an old friend who has been living abroad showed up for a chat about these issues. If the reader wants pure stats, he/she should goggle them or look at a spreadsheet. This is written to appeal to a public who reads "Time" or "Newsweek", not "Consumer Reports". One can only hope that Europeans read this book and take it seriously (which, since it was written by an American, I doubt they will). They need to reevaluate their entire immigration policy (for instance, an American brain surgeon probably couldn't obtain citizenship in Britain, but an iman who doesn't even speak English and openly calls for the overthrow of the secular government and establishment of an Islamic state is welcomed with open arms? I don't get it) and realise that they are harming all of their citizens (including law abiding Muslims) when they allow these monsters to take up residency. Militant Islam may be the biggest threat in history (much more so than Nazism or Communism, since it combines the philosophy of both of them with a lust for conquering and ending the world). Now is the time for the world to wake up and start taking it seriously.

Wow...I don't even really know where to begin with this book. To my way of thinking, it's an excellent overview of women in the media from the early sixties to about the early nineties and it does a pretty thorough job of it dealing with everything from Jackie O to Beatle mania to I Love Lucy and I dream of Jeanie, all the way up to Dynasty and Dallas. It was an eye opener for me from the perspective of I've seen a few episodes of most of the programs she discusses, but many (Dynasty, Dallas, Cagney & Lacey, Hill Street Blues, LA Law, and many more), I've seen either NO episodes or maybe 1-3...we either weren't living in the US at the time (Dynasty and Dallas) or I refused to watch (Hill Street Blues). So from that angle, this book is interesting, because I know these shows were widely acclaimed and watched by millions...it was a whole other take on their popularity and ultimate message to and about women and men and their places in society.

I'd love to see an expanded edition to include some of the other shows in the last 10 years (Xenia, Buffy, and so on)...but overall, having not read much about women in the media (beyond what is shown on the news, somewhat ironic I know) or about feminism (not something I've had any real contact with or connection to in my life. I can't say that my mom ever talked about feminism), so this book was interesting on many levels and while a bit outdated (written in 1994), it was still well worth reading. I give it a solid B...mostly because it's now out of date, otherwise very readable and humorous, while being informative at the same time.

For anyone born after the baby boomers, the constant references to TV shows, music, and movies for illustrating points makes the book nearly unreadable.

She draws almost exclusively on the feelings people felt while watching or listening while growing up. Having missed that generation, I can't identify with that woman. I believe her premise, that women are shaped by the messages they receive growing up, is accurate, but she does a poor job of illustrating it to anyone outside her generation (and maybe inside, I don't know).

I'd love to see this book redone with a little more relevance to all women.

"Where the Girls Are" is a tour through and a look at how pop culture affected girls and women. It is a thought provoking, sarcastic, and very witty portrayal from a woman who admits to having an "attitude problem." The targets are taken from literature, movies, TV and music, and include everything and everyone from "Bewitched," The Shirelles, "Sex and the Single Girl," Charlie's Angels, Murphy Brown and Madonna. She also examines famous feminists'impact including Kate Millett, Gloria Steinem and Bella Abzug. The book contains plenty of quotes from anti-feminists, as well, to show (at least in this reviewer's eyes) just how ridiculous if often effective the opposition to the Women's Movement was.

One thing. The author laments that role models in children's literature are "few and far between." Either she is making a blanket statement, or she has no experience. Young adult and children's lit, even back in 1994 when the book was published, are a treasure trove of strong, positive female heroines.

this book is very readable, but I found if you do not know much about the tv shows she talks about, it really isn't that interesting or imforative. I do know a bit about I Dream of Jeanie and Bewitched, so I found the particular chapter on these two tv shows very informative. However, some of the other chapters seemed a bit dull if I had no other knowledge of the shows, movies, etc that were being talked about. Don't get me wrong, it is very readable, but for me it was harder to stay with it if I had no prior to fall back on. Also, maybe it was me, but I don't know if it went deep enough into the issue of mass media and how it reflects on women.

To begin with, feminism is about finding a suitable subject position for "female", "feminine", "woman." Douglas explores the subject position of the feminine in pop culture -- and does it rather well. Some attacks listed here are uninformed about the purposes of feminism, or assume that feminism is designed to do something anti-male. For instance, "Harpe" you claim that "Government-funded child care, taxpayer-supported abortions, national health insurance, Social Security for homemakers, and many other socialist policies" are socialistic rather than feministic. But maybe that's because your idea of what feminism is remains limited to the outmoded belief that feminism is about equal rights with men (well, white men). What Susan Douglas does here IS feminism and the only way your Civil War nostalgic mind can get past it is to disregard it as socialist (and since when did social responsibility become a BAD thing?). The things Douglas addresses in this book support equality not special privileges -- for instance funding for homemakers provides security should the heteronormic imperative (also known as marriage) fail or be, gasp, undesirable. Why do some readers fail to see that it is men who have special rights by having independence from domesticity in a way that women do not have (particularly in Alabama -- I know, I live here too). For those of you who might have picked this book up to find out "Where the Girls are" for your own misogynistic reasons, put it down now; go read something like Susan Bordo's _The Male Body_; find out what feminism REALLY is and what it hopes to achieve; then come back and read Douglas's book. Until then, vote for Bush and Riley, admire Thomas Jefferson, attend a Civil War re-enactment and stay out of the new millennium.

It helped me a lot with my class, and though I recommend having both the book and the workbook, having just the workbook will help you learn a lot.

the ad said it was used but it was in perfect condition. very fast delivery. will shop with them for future purchases.

great buisness and fast got exactly what i needed and right when i needed the book the most

I agree with the above review. I found explanation of structure to be fairly good, however, the stories were as described. It does seem politically motivated. Homosexuality & Religion, A poor attempt at Spirituality, Racism (actually a good piece by W.E.B. DuBois) etc. I would stick to the Bedford Guide and leave Philosophy, Theology and Sociology to their respective studies. In addition, it does not have Turabian styles included in this manual this you will have to purchase separately.

Most of these essays are very run-of-the-mill rants about racism, sexism, and plastic surgery. There are a few gems like Orwell's "The Hanging" (a subtle piece that exposes the injustices of capital punishment), and "Lost at C" by Jean Shepard. There are also some plain stupid ones like "The Travels of an Onion" and "Neat People versus Sloppy People" which are simply unnecessary.
I see the need for colleges to teach students about racial inequalities and cultural differences, but bad writing is unforgivable.

Awesome this book was like brand new, some of the stuff was still in its orginial wrapping. THANKS

Everything is very helpful in my public speaking. Its content is informative. :-)

The book that popped up when I searched this title turned out to be an older edition which di not have all the materials with it. Since I was intending to use it as a text for a course, it did not meet my needs and I had to return it.

I appreciate be able to buy textbooks at a very reduced rate. thanks

The book I received was an older edition(7th instead of 9th) and did not have all the CD's with it. I returned it in disgust and found the 2007 edition with all materials intact for a LOWER price at my college bookstore. To top it all off, Amazon tried to charge me for shipping the book BOTH ways. They featured the wrong book on their site. My advice: if you want the right book, don't trust Amazon's description. Search by the ISBN

This is a woman who has the gall to expouse relentlessly a child needs a mother and father - when she, a single woman, adopts a child. Ms. Ingraham writes in her book, Power to the Family, "The whole purpose of marriage is to bind a man and woman together for the purpose - or at least the possibility - of of nurturing children."

How can Laura "risk" creating an alternative family lifestyle choice at the expense of the wellbeing of an innocent child?

Family values queen, my arse.

Laura boldly challenges Americans to take back power from the corrupt and amoral government leaders that have had this country in a stranglehold for the last 8 years. In using the famous expression made popular by the civil rights movement and by her spiritual hero, John Lennon, Ingraham reminds the citizens of this great nation that, hey..."Power to the People". Ingraham clearly and rationally lays out the case for ousting the current administration and regaining the democratic principals that the founders had established to give ...you got it...Power to the People. Ingram starts out blasting the White House decision to go to war with a country that posed no real threat to us. She eloquently writes about the thousands upon thousands of innocents that were killed and expresses heartfelt rage at the likes of Rumsfeld and Cheney for glorifying the shock and awe strategy that rained bombs upon the children of Baghdad whom she cries for every night. In addition to pointing out all of the injustices she has seen perpetated by this administration, she also has strong words for the congressmen who have supported this president's positions on torture and dismantling our civil rights. There is also a lengthy but worthwhile section on how our political and religious leaders, such as Larry Craig, Mark Foley, David Vitter, Bob Livingston, James McGreevy, Ted Haggard, Lindsay Graham and the many others she writes about, through their unpardonable deviant sexual behavior, have brought about the total decay of family values and morality in this country (I haven't actually seen anything about Lindsay Graham doing anything sexually wierd...just guessing). Ingram is America's most powerful spokeperson for bringing back...Power to the People.

God bless her. Thank goodness for intelligent people who can string three words together and make sense out of them. Add to that an extraordinarily high level of ethics requiring verifiable documentation, and what cha' got is a smart, very funny, well written, good book. "I'm not worthy" from Saturday Night comes to mind in writing this recommendation. This is a fine book.

This book needs to be read every 3 to 6 months until the people understand what their duty as citizens entails. The free ride is over and is going nowhere. It's time for all citizens to become active in who governs them and Laura Ingraham lays out a very simple way for people to take back our power.

I wish I could give this publication no stars. A relative sent this book to "enlighten" us. Thank goodness we didn't spend money on it. Ms. Ingraham seems to be another "talking head" promoting themselves and their divisive messages. It's frightening to think that people believe what they read in these biased and bigoted books. Ms. Ingraham recommends "spying and videotaping" American Muslim mosque services and activities, school board meetings, and any other groups who advocate "civil liberties" and ideas with which she doesn't agree. She also states that Americans should have freedom of speech and be able to express their disagreement with the government, but not in the case of the Iraq War because that may lead the terrorist enemies to believe all of America is not "united" in this war! Save your money and just turn on FOX news, you'll hear the same messages repeated all day.