Philosophy Books

This book should be taught in a college class. This details exactly what has happened and what needs to be done to correct what has happened the last 20 years.

Today's financial situation is the result of the battle the suthor so clearly describes. Why can't we listen?

Loved the feel of this book and there is tons of great information here about the inner workings of investments, funds and financial shenanigans. Some of the info was over my head but where I could digest it, it was great.

The first half of Bogle's volume gives a detailed explanation of the problems with our stock market; the second half gives his solution proposals. And if John Bogle doesn't know what is going on both openly and behind closed doors (read his qualifications), then no one does.

This book describes how stock (mutual fund and corporate) managers are not "honest, competent and fair-minded...[or] doing the right thing." (p. 89) And just how the "managers' interest [are placed] ahead of the owners' interest." (p. 90) The recurrent theme is that corporate America has moved from owners' capitalism to managers' capitalism.

Bogle describes "the pervasive...'happy conspiracy' among corporate managers, CEOs, CFOs, directors, auditors, lawyers, Wall Street investment brokers, sell-side security analysts, buy-side portfolio managers, and indeed investors themselves--individual and institutional alike." (p. 98)

"More than one-fifth of...growth returns...during the past two decades has been siphoned off by fund managers.... More than three-fourths of the cumulative financial wealth produced...over an investment lifetime will be consumed by fund managers, leaving less than 25 percent for the investors. Yet it is the [95 million] investors ['individuals of modest means--often via retirement plans'] who put up 100 percent of the capital and assume 100 percent of the risk." (p.xxii)

Not only does the author write about the "Captains of Industry" (or robber barons)--Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan and Carnegie--he deals with the current "casino mentality of so many institutional investors..." (p. 98) Yes, you will read of "the conspiracy between corporate money managers and institutional money managers. [We have] a gambler's market instead of an investor's market," declares Bogle. (p. 118)

Bogle explains why "institutional investors [should] move away from their present obsession with short-term earnings of dubious validity and towards a new obsession focused on the creation of intrinsic value over the long term." (p. 114)

Finally, Bogle does not let we individual investors off easy, either, by explaining "the failure of investment America to exercise its ownership rights over corporate America.

As stated earlier, Bogle has solutions which you will read about in the second half of the book.

This book is a work of genius and integrity, with the potential to catalyze Wall Street into fulfilling the promise of moral capitalism and community ownership.

Here are some highlights from my flyleaf notes:

+ America is no longer an ownership society--financial intermediaries "own" everyting and the individual owners are passive

+ We can find the wisdom and will to restore moral capitalism

+ Earnings have been manipulated and misrepresented.

+ Executive compensation plus lax accounting and the fiction of quarterly earnings versus actual cash flow have hollowed industry out.

+ Profound conflict of interest exist across all fronts

+ Fund managers have siphoned off one fifth of the gross value of the funds.

+ Our business world chose the wrong bottom line, and ignored the importance of sustaining human, social, and community capital

+ Stock options aqre out of control.

Seven specific Conference Board suggestions:

1) Corporate citizenship

2) Separate ownership from management

3) Fix the stock option mess

4) Pay on performance not peers

5) Return to long-term focus

6) Let sunlight shine on accounting

7) New mindset for Board (aggresive stewardship)

Page 103: "Investment America went wrong, then, because in the contagious enthusiasm of the day, financial engineering and manufactured earnings became the coin of the valuation realm, accepted by corporate managers and investment managers alike. What is more, the emphasis on short-term price came to overwhelm the reality of long-term value, as investors failed to honor the distinction between investment and speculation drawn by John Maynard Keynes six decades earlier."

In my view, this book, and three others, should comprise the Christmas reading list for all adults:
Independents Day: Awakening the American Spirit
Day of Reckoning: How Hubris, Ideology, and Greed Are Tearing America Apart
A Power Governments Cannot Suppress

I am personally committed to the non-violent legal ethical overthrow of the existing pathologically inept federal government and its politcal leaders in both Congress and the Executive who lack morality, intelligence, integrity, or conscience. Dick Cheney, not George Bush (a village idiot) is their poster child. I find it truly gratifying that a man of such financial stature as John Bogle now articulates and inspires the remorse that Wall Street must feel for running the Earth into the ground.

Below are other books I recommend as a reading list toward November, five about the bad, five about the promise:

The Bad (see my reviews):
Vice: Dick Cheney and the Hijacking of the American Presidency
The Broken Branch: How Congress Is Failing America and How to Get It Back on Track (Institutions of American Democracy)
Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA
Fog Facts: Searching for Truth in the Land of Spin

The Good (see my reviews):
The Politics of Fortune: A New Agenda For Business Leaders
The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid: Eradicating Poverty Through Profits (Wharton School Publishing Paperbacks)
The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom


God Bless America. We can unite and fix this. Check out Reuniting America (Unity 08 is a fraud, the last gasp of the spoils system).

I am not a avid reader and I read for an hour 2 or 3 times a week i.e if the book is good and after I started reading this book I just couldn't drop it. In fact I used to look up every evening to the time when I can start reading it from where I left off the previous night.
Its a great book if you are interested in history of math/science, the great minds, their lives, their hardships and frustrations back then and current trends. You don't need know a whole lot of math to understand this. If you understand the Pythagoras theorem you are good to go:)

Who could have thought maths could be so much fun ! Told with infectious enthusiasm, this is the story of pure maths as well as the quest to solve one of its most challenging riddles of all time. Full of fascinating info, this is a true gem.

Alongside books like "Fantasia Mathematica", "Flatline" and "E=MC2", Fermat's Enigma does a fantastic job of showing both the human drama of mathematics, as well as the beauty of the science itself.

Better than I've ever seen it put before, Singh captures how math is different from every other science -

(my summary from pages 18-22)
"Math is the pursuit for ultimate truth. Once a mathematical theorom is proven, it is true till the end of time. Scientific proofs, on the other hand, are merely considered highly likely based on the evidence available."

And, math is aptly described as a language, a way of talking about everything in the world around us with absolute truth. There is purity. As stated by Pythagoras when describing the shape of rivers, the sound of a musical instrument, the shape of the earth..."Everything is Number".

If only we were given that inspiring vision, that clarity of importance, in middle school math...

You will discover how one day dream can come true. From Pythagoras and Fermat and to Andrew Wiles - Simon Singh will help you to make more than 350 years way to solution of mystery in few hours (or in couple of days). This is really enjoyable historic reading - highly recommended.

While this book does make for an enjoyable read, it seems that the whole premise of the book is based on a false pretense. The magic of the quest to solve Fermat's Last Theorem is a direct result of him having written that he has discovered a proof for it. If he had written that he was unsure of a proof it is unlikely that it would have garnered much interest. While what Andrew Wiles has done is a remarkable piece of mathematics, it is most definitely not what Fermat had in mind when he scribbled on the margin of his Arithmetica. [Therefore it is difficult to understand why it should have made any difference to Wiles whether the attempted proof of Fermat by Yoichi Miyaoka in March 1988 was successful or not (as detailed in Chapter 6), as what Wiles was really working on proving was the Taniyama - Shimura Conjecture, and this was not touched upon by Miyaoka.] We are forced to assume that Fermat had erred in writing that he had a proof, which in turn removes the essential ingredient of the drama of this saga, namely figuring out what Fermat had discovered that eluded generations of mathematicians. Singh himself alludes to this in the end of his book, but I believe that this undermines the point of the book as a whole.
As to the book itself, the most interesting part for me were the brief presentations of landmark developments in number theory and mathematics of the course of the century. However, any with a strong background in math will already know much of what is covered in the first half, and anyone without a strong background in math will be lost by what is covered in the second half. Obviously, trying to condense the basic ideas of a one hundred page proof that only the top mathematicians in the world can understand into a chapter or two comprehensible to the average reader is an impossible task. This is what Singh attempts to do and fails, although not any worse than any other author would.
Bottom line, if you have a healthy interest in math and/or number theory you will enjoy parts of this book, and if you have a degree in math and/or number theory you will enjoy the other parts.

It is truly unfortunate that Von Mises is perhaps the most overlooked 20th Century champion of free market capitalism. His brilliant observations have heavily influenced the momentous (and much more revered) works of Friedrich Hayek, as well as subsequent scholars such as Murray Rothbard, Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, and others. Von Mises is the one who towers over almost every other laissez-faire economist (except Adam Smith and few others). His insightful formulations devastated the incessant obfuscations of the socialists and demonstrated, once and for all, the comparative benefits of a free market system.

At the heart of SOCIALISM is the argument that economic calculation is impossible without a free market. Von Mises effectively drove home the need for a market price in order to regulate the supply and demand of human society. Recent proposals for socialized medicine completely deny this importance of the price system: if the price of medicine (for consumers) is zero, the demand will be astronomical, and the doctors and other medical personnel will not be capable of effectively meeting such demand. Few proponents of "universal health care" ever address this concern, which colorfully evidences their lack of interest in -- or understanding of -- Von Mises' penetrating contentions.

"The market is a democracy in which every penny gives a right to vote. . . . Every individual is free to disagree with an election campaign or of the market process. But in a democracy he has no other means to alter things than persuasion. If a man were to say: 'I do not like the mayor elected by majority vote; therefore I ask government to replace him by the man I prefer,' one would hardly call him a democrat. But if the same claims are raised with regard to the market, most people are too dull to discover the dictatorial apirations involved." (p. 490) Von Mises had the presence of mind to fully discern the tyrannical motivations behind most calls for a collectivist arrangement. He knew that the grotesque desires of the elite would inevitably eclipse the true inclinations of man. More than an economic dissertation, SOCIALISM was an expression of human justice, as illuminated by the deference the author paid to the individual autonomy of the common man. Respect for the personal choices of others is, after all, the defining characteristic of freedom.

Regardless of the self-serving configurations of the statists and their innumerable followers, the free market works, as evidenced by the fact that even the poor feely partake in such a system and usually enjoy a much higher standard of living than even the average citizen in socialist nations. As the American federal government continues to expand at an alarming rate, we would do well as a society to better familiarize ourselves with the philosophies of Von Mises and his progeny. Reading SOCIALISM would be a start in the right direction. Those of us who have already surveyed the book should recommend it to as many thoughtful (and open-minded) people as we know. Day by day, one person at a time, we can begin to recover and restore our devotion to liberty as a society. As the author of this tremendous book well knew, the voluntary exchange of a free market will almost always be more efficient and preferable than the coercive force of government. The hollow promises of a big, active, all-intrusive state will always lure a great percentage of our soicety -- most of them well-meaning, but averse to logic and evidence -- yet such dreams always provide the essential fuel for despotism. A return to our federalist roots (in which the states are sovereign entities rather than ineffectual subsidiaries of the federal government) and to the free market principles of Smith and Von Mises would serve us well in our on-going struggle against state-sponsored tyranny.

This is THE definitive work on the impracticality, impossibility and immorality of socialism. Von Mises, who observed socialism first hand before having to flee his home in Europe, and who lived through the age of great collectivist experiments, has written a simply devastating critique. The (supposed) reader below who wrote the review entitled "Propogating Utopian Fallacies", obviously either has not read the book, or completely misunderstood the entire thing. A more ignorant review of this book can hardly be imagined. He makes several dubious assumptions in his review and attributes them to Von Mises. He makes statements like, "Mises doesn't understand," or "Mises believes" and then proceeds to use these statements to try to refute the idea of free markets. He also fails to apply his own logical excercises to himself. For example he states that if Mises were consistent, he would have rejected all government and not just some collectivist programs. Yet the reviewer seems to be a believer in a half-way system where markets are mixed with socialism, "democracy", and government intervention. I guess he must have a monopoly on believing that governments should do some things and leave others to the anarchy of the market. Anyone familair with the rest of Mises's works and with free market and libertarian theory in general can't help but laugh at the claims he makes. This reviewer clearly does not understand property rights based, modern anarchist theory (as opposed to the Rage Against the Machine variety which he makes reference to), nor does he understand this book. The claims he makes in the last paragraph of his reveiw are so outlandish and naive that they do not even warrant a response. An important lesson can be gained here though. Without some prior (correct) understanding of concepts like markets, anarchy, liberty, the true nature of government, and without some understanding of logical processes, it is easy to fall prey to such overly-simplified arguments. I would recommend along with this book, also reading other books by authors such as Mises, Murray Rothbard, Henry Hazlitt, and F.A. Hayek.

Does anything else need to be said?

October 25th 1817- The Bolsheviks stage a coupe in Petrograd and overthrow the Kerensky regime. For the first time ever Marxists seize control of a major nation. It will be several years before the Bolsheviks overwhelm their opponents within Russia. However, one question demands an answer. Will it work? Can socialism at least match the results of capitalism? The full answer to this question came in 1922- the year that Mises published Socialism, an Economic and Sociological Analysis. Here Mises proved that socialism must fail.

Why must socialism fail? The simple answer is because it lacks private ownership and a market for the means of production. As Mises put it "where there is no market there is no price system, and where there is no price system there can be no economic calculation". The full answer has several parts. First, economic calculation requires functioning financial markets. Second, economic calculation requires actual rivalry in markets. Third, economic calculation requires entrepreneurial alertness to profit opportunities. With these three elements in place monetary calculation of private profit reflects true economic costs. As Mises put it economic calculation "is essentially a matter for the capitalists- the capitalists who buy and sell stocks and shares, who make loans and recover them, who make deposits in the banks and draw them out of the banks again, who speculate in all kinds of commodities". Perpetually changing economic conditions mean that- "it is above all necessary that capital should be withdrawn from particular lines of production, from particular undertakings and concerns and should be applied in other lines of production, in other undertakings and concerns". Speculation in financial markets directs resources to the most urgent consumer demands because the most profitable ventures satisfy consumer demand at the least economic cost. Socialism fails because it lacks speculation that takes place only with entrepreneurial rivalry and exchange in financial markets.

The issue of economic calculation is economic, but Mises also inquired into the political and psychological reasons behind the socialist movement. He also discusses historical and cultural issues. Socialism is a full-scale treatise, comparable to Smith's Wealth of Nations. Some might think that a book from 1922 might have lost its relevance, but this is untrue. Mises explained principles that are as valid today as they were originally. In fact, Socialism is more relevant today than many recent books on economics. This is because Mises dealt with the real life problems of a dynamic economy, while much of modern economics focuses on static models that apply only to imaginary economic conditions.

Socialism is not only Mises' best book; it is one of the greatest works ever written on social theory. Mises addressed vital issues with penetrating analysis and delivered profound results. All those who are serious about political economy should read this book, but only after having read Menger's Principles of Economics, and before reading Hayek's Road to Serfdom. Those who are less ambitious should read a shorter book by Mises- Liberalism in the Classical Tradition. In any case, Socialism is a towering intellectual achievement. Were its arguments more widely understood many of the tragedies of 20th century state socialism might have been avoided. This book remains important today because it explains why we live in an age of unprecedented prosperity, and how we can achieve further progress. To put it simply Socialism is as indispensable to intellectual development as property rights are to economic development.

Mises' Socialism is, perhaps, the most sociologically and economically "sound" theoretical attack on socialism to date. Happily, Dr. Mises' general position has been promulgated in economic journals since the post-war generation, and is the topic of the still relevant "calculation debate." It is not so pleasant that the insights of Mises are largely ignored by the sociology profession (probably because most sociologists continue to be prepossessed by Marxian materialism). However, sociologists who are seduced by the Marxian doctrine will be interested in this theoretical work because it asserts that social life can only be completely transformed, for the worst, under a centrally planned socioeconomic system. Further, Mises' erudition is manifest as he demolishes the work of Karl Marx and other utopians.

The central insight in this text for sociology is that "socialism" must manufacture an "artificial market." That is, a non-private property based market economy where managers will be given incentives in order to perform as private private owners who do business in a socioeconomic system analgous to "rational capitalism." This implication of an overhaul of social institutions (e.g., legal and monetary institutions) is a trenchant one. Hence, the idea of socialism is largely a sociopolitical problem, and one must move outside the perimeters of economic theory in order to address them. And Mises does just that!

The economic and sociological acumen in this work makes the price a steal. I must add, however, that more social scientists outside of economics need to read this tome because one cannot truly understand "society" without an understanding of economics.

I loved this book and want to read it again. When I first read it, alone in my living room, I nodded, grunted, and laughed out loud. A few sections made my eyes fill with tears. I kept thinking, "I've got to buy a copy of this for so-and-so."

Todd begins with an anecdote about buying a lovely antique. When this item turns out to be a fake, Todd wonders why this should even matter. After all, the object is still beautiful; it hasn't changed. He then goes on to explore both the nature of authenticity and the history of our yearning for it.

He follows a meandering path, which is a large part of the book's charm. I loved the asides and byways, many of which left me with a desire to travel further along them. I also loved the details contained in these asides. I'm grateful, too, for the specific titles that Todd mentions. Most of all, though, I loved the tone: kind, thoughtful, inclusive, and deeply human. Todd does not make this an abstract discussion. He personalizes it in ways that will help every reader know just what he means.

I read this quickly so I could pass on my copy to my brother. Now I need more copies to give as gifts. I guess the first person to get one will be me.

I am the brother who received the gift of Mr. Todd's book . Its excellence and wit has produced within me, among flushes of admiration and enjoyment, a few ominous polyps of envy; the sneaking suspicion that Mr. Todd is simply "better" than I am. Because my sister and I are both writers, "better" in this case, maps not only the geography of witty and elegant prose; but also a writer's envy of ideas so admirably turned as to make one suspect that Mr Todd possesses the sole example a lathe designed to express them as perfectly appropriately as the leg of a fine Queen Anne chair. An idea appears, is isolated for examination, and then twirled and turned around and upside down, until every perspective and permutation has been considered. Other readers, like myself, undoubtedly hold opinions about kitsch, Disneyland, authenticity, antique fairs, Yuppie suburban interlopers, wilderness, personal failings and cultural collapse, but I'll wager that by the end of this book those opinions will have been revised and certainly better articulated. Mr. Todd's genius is that he can make you laugh while he forces you do this. I'll think better of myself because I have bought and shared copies of this book with friends and resisted the temptation of inserting his observations into conversations as my own. Yet having admitted that, I can see that even this dishonorable impulse, is part of the terrain this wonderful book maps.

Dalrymple's In Praise of Prejudice, subtitled The Necessity of Preconceived Ideas, tackles a seemingly settled subject, prejudice. Who could possibly be in favor of prejudice? He starts by acknowledging that the word prejudice has assumed horrible connotations: "To hate, despise, depreciate, or discriminate against someone merely because he belongs to a certain racial group." Nevertheless, he reminds readers that prejudice--in the sense of predispositions or preconceptions--is absolutely necessary to human thought and to social progress. One generation builds on the progress of previous generations by taking for granted the discoveries of the past. Neither of these two propositions seems particularly startling, so it is fair to ask, "Why should I read this book?"

Is the author's point merely to show some useful sides of prejudice? No! He has a far more ambitious goal; he demonstrates that Western society's fear of--and reaction against--prejudice has encouraged moral, ethical, and social breakdown by undermining our judgments, weakening our institutions, and making us susceptible to totalitarian fixes. He tackles this thesis from many angles. Chapter five, for example, is about childrearing and education. By trying to ensure that we leave children free from our prejudices, we lose site of the dividing lines between infancy and childhood, childhood and adolescence, and adolescence and adulthood. Parents routinely ask their children's advice about things children know nothing relevant about. He mentions the grocery store, where parents quiz their kids about what they want to eat. We have all seen the result: "in the absence of experience, children will always choose the same thing, the thing that is most immediately attractive or gratifying to them." Then, society calls for government action to curb the childhood obesity crisis.

Parents' willingness to indulge their children has become something of a pet peeve with me. I see parents becoming short-order cooks at nearly every mealtime, their children getting veto power over whatever has been prepared, with unlimited special menus available to them. Such overindulgent mothers would respond to a husband's demand for unique, personal, impromptu meals with anger or even violence, but when little Johnny demands, the mother starts asking exactly how he'd like his order prepared. Dalrymple argues that this desire to keep our children free from our influence results in "arrested development." He observes that overindulgent parents accomplish something unintended: "A young child, constantly consulted over his likes and dislikes, learns that life is, and ought to be, ruled by his likes and dislikes. He is not free of prejudices just because he is free of his parents' prejudices. On the contrary, he is a slave to his own prejudices. Unfortunately, they are harmful both to him as an individual, and to the society of which he is a member."

While I thought that this book might have more cognitive science inside, perhaps more like one of Steven Pinker's, the lack of scientific rigor (footnotes and source citations are absent) is a reasonable sacrifice for such a readable book. I received the book on Friday and read it three times over the weekend. If you are looking for an enjoyable and thought-provoking book, you should order this little 126-page gem.

IN PRAISE OF PREJUDICE is a collection of essays about the utility of tradition and precedent and authority. Prejudice makes life easier because youre not forced or obsessed with re-inventing the wheel every day. Things that are consistent become axiomatic, accepted without proof. That is we dont usually cringe when old women with blue hair board the subway with us.

The book gets off to a slow and labored start. It really needs one more draft to fix the sluggishness. This isnt Dalrymple's best prose. But it improves enough and his thoughts become clear, coherent, and provocative where it matters.

For those familiar with Dr. Dalrymple's perspective, this essay crystallises his recurrent themes into a handy 'reader'. For those readers new to Dr. Dalrymple, this book presents a quick entry to his view of the social ills created by a relaxation of virtue and education.

Whilst not one of his most erudite publications ('Our Culture' and 'Life at Bottom' present wider coverage), this essay defines what is pernicious about the current pervasive view in modern culture that being without prejudice, or being non-judgemental, is a virtue.

Dr. Dalrymple's position is argued by using example of social decay caused by this failure (of being without prejudice), focusing singularly on the necessity of prejudice to advance mankind's thought and actions.

A quick read, and not a bad read. A quick entry point or a summary of previous work.

It is a rare book which requires reading without breaks. This was such a book. It helps that I am in agreement with the major points of the book! Prejudice many not be the best word to describe the expectations and common concepts and attitudes, but he major point is clear: we simply must have common ideas, customs and opinions in order to survive. It is impossible to picture a world where everybody is individual in the full meaning of the word. The present western culture is schizophrenic in a sense that we want to be individuals but at the same time long for community spirit and want to share our opinions. It is pathetic how much energy is used to be different than the others. Of course, it would be great if we could have an optimum level of "prejudice", but this seems to be impossible. This is one of the best books I have read lately.

Well, Dr. Dalrymple is to me at any rate. I would place him solidly on my list of top five writers without any question. Indeed, I probably will read anything he ever writes on any subject. Yes, I agree with the other reviewers that this book is too short, but, being that it is part of a series called "Brief Encounters," this is to be expected.

Here our eminent retired psychiatrist demolishes a major cornerstone of political correctness. Specifically, it is the mandate that we be non-judgmental in regards to everyone and everybody--with the exception of those who are judgmental or prejudicial, of course. In their case, no fate is too severe. Dr. Dalrymple argues convincingly that a life without preconception is an impossibility; just as is truth without presupposition. To display prejudice once meant an individual had discernment, but now it means one has a variety of PC ism.

The influence of the sensitivity-at-all-costs gang has altered the world irreparably and for the worse. Dr. Dalrymple showcases this eventuality within a myriad of contexts. One of which is unconventionality which once equated with individuals being... unconventional. Yet now, the label has morphed into a compliment. This has led the avant-garde to undergo "the equivalent of an arms race," becoming more and more outlandish in order to satisfy the needs of their social clique. They always forget the truism that the only thing which never changes is the avant-garde.

No longer are politeness and civility integral to functional social relations. Making a spectacle of oneself in public can be lamentable but is deemed a sign of honesty and sincerity. No matter how out-of-control the person who "loses it" becomes his tantrum elucidates how true he is to his feelings. Asking him to show restraint would rob him of authenticity.

Numerous ornate phrases bejewel In Praise of Prejudice and my own favorite is "The Law of Conservation of Righteous Indignation." Dr. Dalrymple posits that a free-floating, constant mass of indignation among populations may be as intrinsic to humanity as our lust for fat and salt. We find that as old prejudices dissipate, new ones form to become repositories of animus. Tobacco is a perfect example. Once it was regarded merely as a vice but now outrage over its usage unites our elites. Our leaders then spray their sanctimonious acrimony upon the demon weed and whoever is foolish enough to pay the exorbitant taxes that allow them to smoke it. Yes, this is a brief encounter with Dr. Dalrymple, but, as always, it is one that leaves readers vastly enriched.

I purchased this for my grandson, who at 91/2 is an exceptionally bright boy.
Neither he nor his father were able to make heads or tails out of this purchase.

I have seen the books' author on tv, I like the way he divided the book in 5 parts so you can understand about Harry Potter.

Very early in the book John Granger recalls Professor Moody's trunk with 7 locks. Each time Dumbledore inserts a key into a different lock the trunk opens and contains different items. This book is exactly like that trunk! I have read or listened to every Harry Potter book (except Phoenix) more times than I can count and yet each time that Granger brings out a new key my reaction was "I didn't know that that was in there!" I even understand now why I didn't enjoy re-reading Phoenix (the alchemical "black" stage of the series)as much as the other books.

I didn't read this book until after I had read Deathly Hallows and I still truly enjoyed reading Granger's predictions. Some of them were spot on, while others weren't, but the premises on which they were based were solid. I had to laugh at one point, when a reference was made to the sun/Sol and moon/Luna coming together as part of an alchemical wedding. It wasn't precisely a prediction, but in Deathly Hallows Luna certainly did arrive at the wedding wearing brilliant yellow, "sun colors."

The best part is that I can reread the entire Potter series one more time, with a new perspective, and be assured of appreciating details that I have missed before.

If you've already finished "Deathly Hallows," and you think this book is now obsolete, think again! This author's take on how Rowling thought while writing the HP series is fascinating and highly educational. Granger could teach a college course on the post-modern literary aspects of Harry Potter, and students would have to go on a wait list just to sign up for the course. Though Granger, I think, would be an annoying prof. His narrative voice has an edge of sarcasm and snobbery - which is hilarious and incredibly irritating at the same time.

Throughout reading this book, I was also fascinated with how on-target were many of his predictions for the "Deathly Hallows" book. At times he is way off-base, and other times you think he must have had an advance copy because he is so precise in his insights about how Rowling will think in crafting the 7th book. I learned a lot about this fascinating series - why I was duped by Rowling in almost every single book, why the themes are so compelling across 3 generations of readers ... and I was left wondering if we will ever again see a book or series like Harry Potter in our lifetime.

This is not always an easy read and there's some hard thinking required to keep up with John Granger's fascinating views. Likewise, I'm sure there are simpler books which roll around in the Potter mythos more completely. On the other hand, I cannot imagine a more thoughtful and though provoking analysis of the bigger historical movements and context that informs, flows within and, sometimes, drives the Potter series.

If you are someone for who learning is a pleasure and discovering new areas of learning to explore is a delight, this book is for you. Buy it right now, it is a great joy.

One note: this book was written before HP7 was published so it is somewhat dated in that respect. I would be curious to see a newer edition which encompasses the last book. But, having said that, it was very interesting to read this book knowing what Granger did not, the contents of the last book. His views stand up quite well and the honesty of this 'blind test' is comforting and fascinating.

Helps the reader easily grasp both authors divergent and convergent insights on language. The material on politics was enlightening.

Regarding the so-called "power conspiracy" theories--which Chomsky has refuted several times, both in print and in lectures--proponents of those theories argue not, e.g., that there are meetings between the Board of Directors of Exxon-Mobil and their major stockholders--of which there certainly are. No. Conspiracy theorists argue the case for some grand, overarching subterfuge. That is, e.g., monthly meetings between the CEOs of the New York Times, the Washington Post, et. al., Exxon-Mobil and the other Fortune One-Hundred Corporations, and high-level D.C. administrators, etc., examining all of the data on dissident factions, major protests, D.C. legislators and jurists exhibiting opposition to status quo policy making, etc., and then plotting to coordinate counter-intelligence measures to maintain their own entitlements, etc.
And, all this, considering the fierce competition, and predatory tactics amongst the Players themselves, i.e., to, daily, unman--i.e., castrate, economically speaking--any (viable or not) competitors. And, we have not even touched upon security leaks, etc., the threat of which would be ever-present (consider the thoughts of a disgruntled Player who felt cheated in a recent "deal"), and which would prove calamitous, to say the least. Nor have we entered into the equation the very real presence of trans-national Players, whose interests impinge upon our own--from hour to hour, in fact, if one considers the realities of the various Exchanges in major world markets.
Is this possible? Consider the enormity of such an ongoing effort--and it would, of necessity, have to be ongoing, since the rank-and-file are in a state of information exchange, revision, flux, etc. Again--is it possible that a grand, overarching subterfuge does, in fact, exist? Well, since anything is quote-unquote possible, let us, then, consider--more practically--what is likely, i.e., within the context of: What is really needful for Power to maintain its prerogatives and entitlements? To differentiate Power from Player: Power itself, we would do well to remember, is no respector of persons. That is, Power will readily forego the participation of this or that particular Player, but Power itself will not be as readily undermined.

At this point, Players within the Market/State/Media complex do not need to "conspire" in order for Power to exist. That is, Power, in the parlance of Social theorists, is "libidinous." "Libidinous" is a Freudian term referring to the libido, the sex drive, or sexual desire--an apt comparison. Power is libidinous--an often mindless, material striving...for its own sake. "Libido" and "desire" can be subtle drives, but none the less real for their subtlety. And, similarly, Power, as an illegitimate (i.e., non-justified), entity--i.e., Power, as the exercise of self-serving control by the few over the many--that has not been successfully opposed, or contravened, once rooted, will continue. It's as simple as that.
At this late stage in the game no overarching conspiracy is needed--no upper-echelon "meetings," subterfuge, secret envoys, etc.--to sustain Power. Yes, the names and faces of the various Players may be variable--e.g., if the CEO of Exxon-Mobil dies tomorrow some other "suit" will take over quickly--and, this, despite the fact that they would that their own personal agenda be maintained. But--and, despite that variability (q.v., the meetings, the violent takeovers, the power coups, etc.)--Power itself rolls on.
Yet--and, returning to libidinous Power--just what is there to "desire"? That is, what are the Market, the State, and the Media in pursuit of--simultaneously--that might lead one to believe that there is a quote-unquote conspiracy which correlates all of their activities, somehow in tandem, one to the other? Again: What is there to desire? In a word: MORE. "MORE," that is necessary or needful? No--just "MORE" (this is akin to the difference between Marxian "exchange value" versus "use value"). And, the pursuit of "MORE" will never, in fact, be sated.
Power itself dictates terms to its Players, i.e., the particular Players are merely incidental to Power. And, just like someone suffering from a substance-abuse type addiction, Power-as-the-pursuit-of-MORE has to be contravened and stopped. To use another analogy, it's like a juggernaut--it's out of control, i.e., it cannot stop by itself. It has to be opposed...

It is now widely conceded among post-modern/post-structuralist circles that Foucault broke the back of linguist-political scientist Noam Chomsky in this televised debate on Dutch television. Perhaps this conception further contributed to Chomksy's disdain with the French intellectual community entire in subsequent years. Nevertheless, regardless of one's political/philosophical disposition, this is an endlessly fascinating debate, between two thinkers working as "tunnellers through a mountain working at opposite sides of the same mountain with different tools, without even knowing if they are working in each other's direction" (2), to use the moderators' description.

The debate begins technically, Chomksy addresses his discoveries within the domain of cognitive linguistics, and Foucault outlines his historical research into the sciences in Western civilization. Chomsky is a self-described rational `Cartesian,' a philosophical disposition largely rejected by post-modernity after the detruktion of Western philosophy by Martin Heidegger. Foucault, on the other hand, (who began as a major Heideggerian) seems to adopt a Nietzschean disposition; he rejects Chomsky's assertion that a genuine concept of human justice is rooted biologically in the human species. Rather, that our knowledge of morality and human nature are always necessarily rooted in social conditioning. Chomsky actually fails (here as well as elsewhere) to really confront the philosophy of Nietzsche, who necessarily put a dent in all forms of socialism, whether democratic, libertarian, or totalitarian. To illustrate Chomsky's elusiveness: "FOUCAULT: it seems to me that the idea of justice in itself is an idea which in effect has been invented and put to work in different types of societies as an instrument of a certain political and economic power as a weapon against that power. But it seems to me that, in any case, the notion of justice itself functions within a society of classes as a claim made by the oppressed class and as justification for it. CHOMSKY: I don't agree with that. FOUCAULT: And in a classless society, I am not sure that we would still use this notion of justice" (54-55). But Chomksy replies by reasserting his belief that there must be an absolute basis in which notions of human justice are "grounded" (ibid), however, he relies once again solely on his partial knowledge of what `human nature' is.

I didn't know about this debate between these two on this subject--what a find! I am reading it now, and a line of friends are waiting for their turn.

The Chomsky-Foucault Debate On Human Nature collects and presents an integral debate held between two of the world's top intellectuals, Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault, held in 1971 (during the height of the Vietnam War) to wrestle with the ancient question: Is there such a thing as "innate" human nature independent of our experiences and external influences? In addition to reproducing the debate verbatim, The Chomsky-Foucault Debate On Human Nature includes later writings by each speaker: "Politics" (1976) and "A Philosophy of Language" (1976) by Noam Chomsky, and "Truth and Power" (1976), "Omnes et Singulatim: Toward a Critique of Political Rason" (1978) and "Confronting Government: Human Rights" (1984) by Michel Foucault. "The concept of legality and the concept of justice are not identical; they're not entirely distinct either. Insofar as legality incorporates justice in this sense of better justice, referring to a better society, then we should follow and obey the law... Of course, in those areas where the legal system happens to represent not better justice, but rather the techniques of oppression that have been codified in a particular autocratic system, well, then a reasonable human being should disregard and oppose them, at least in principle; he may not, for some reason, do it in fact." Highly recommended, and a welcome contribution to library philosophy shelves.

I received the book in ample amount of time!! Thanks!!

I found this book of little use. The major problems created by using race as the main focus of the book include:
* Race as a subject is so overworked that nearly everyone over eight years of age has come to conclusions about race, the most important and most common of which is "I am not racist." However, given how the human brain works (selective attention, generalization, and others) and how humans interact (tribal affiliation, application of generalizations based on visual input, and so on), prejudice and therefore racism are inevitable: We are all racist whether we think so or not.
* Again, because the issue of race is overworked, the reaction of many people when race is introduced as a subject is, "Not again!" This could be overcome by a unique or fresh approach. Outside of Chapter 7, "Toward an Understanding of School Achievement", nothing new or fresh is provided.

On the positive side, the case studies are well written and well selected. In a different literary context, these case studies could be of immense value. Also, Chapter 7 has value to offer.

Yes, I realize that racial discrimination issues are critical, especially given the level of racial discriminiation that exists in the human family. However, focusing on such discrimination as the root issue has stalled civil rights. It has accomplished pretty much all it is going to accomplish. It is time to recognize that predudice is part of the human condition.

I invite Ms. Nieto or others to write a text based on the biological and sociological roots of prejudice aimed at helping the reader and, in the context of college classes, the student realize their own propensity for prejudice, recognize how it might show up, and correct the issues of their own prejudice as they emerge.

Well now, I know where some of the true Marxist are hiding. In this book, Nieto is trying to create equity policies in schools using taxpayer dollars. If she had her way, she would get rid of capitalism, social classes, and distribution of wealth. Of course, we have already seen how that works in the former Soviet Union (it doesn't work at all). Yes, in a democratic-republic (Nieto always forgets the republic part) there is a dominant culture. Kind of why we call this a nation state, we have national culture. Unfortunately, Nieto is too busy saying the dominant culture is based on White European ideals. In fact, the ideals are based on Judaism, which is not European at all.
There are some aspects of diverse cultures that keep people down trodden in our society, and it is NOT restricted to the dominant cultures. But Nieto makes it sound as though it only happens to dominant cultures.

Nieto did a fantastic job handling this subject and I love how challenged I am by it! It really causes you to think very deeply about multicultural education and the sociopolitical factors that come into play.

The case studies are the best part of this text, though. I love the fact that there are follow-ups in the back of the book for several of the kids!

Even if you think you know all there is to know about multicultural education, you will be surprised by how much you learn from this very well-written book.

I found this book to primarily address the issues of eastern seaboard minority students rather than the issues faced in the southwestern US. Here in AZ there is a very strong prejudice against Immigrant students of Spanish speaking origin. Did you realize that in most workplaces in AZ we are not allowed to speak in a language other than English to a co-worker? Some paranoid person, usually a transplanted Anglo from out of state thinks we are talking about them. Ms Nieto needs to make her text more of a national treasure by not just focusing on those in the Midwest and Eastern seaboard nothern states. This book is due for an update!

He has done it again. I love this man. I can relate to him so much. He has given me the desire to change my life.

Pray it Forward: Spiritual Growth Meditations

Pray it Forward: Daily Meditations

I've come across this Jewel of a book after reading "The Greatest Salesman in the World" This little handbook of rules to live by is the only set of rules you will ever need to lead a wonderful life. I laughed and cried while reading because his writings ring so true. How fortunate of me to have come across such a wonderful little book that can transform anyone's life for the better. Read it, enjoy it, apply it to your life and enjoy all that life has to offer you.

Og Mandino is the greatest inspirational writer of our time! This book is just another example of what a fine human being he was! I just hope there's someone out there to continue his legacy. A really great read!

Illustrative with many of his inspiring and life changing stories, Og Mandino tells us in this book, that "we have forgotten one of the basic facts of life. When we were given dominion over this world, we were also given dominion over ourselves. We are our own navigators. It was never God's intention to chart a map for each of us." "Life is a game" he also says, "it's spiritual, mysterious and precious." But in order to play the game you have to know the rules.
Seventeen rules (to be exact) to live by in order to lead a better way to live.
This book can easily be read in one afternoon. As you start the book you will be invited by the author to sit down and relax in his company as he takes on the role of a racconteur, as only Og Mandino does best.

I have read everyone of Og Mandinos Books and all I can say is that he writes with brilliance, clarity, enthusiasm, and spirit. You can never go wrong with any of his books. He points out the path to success and motivates the spirit within to achieve all that we as human beings are capable. He helped me to tap into my innate genuis and create a life of prosperity and creativity. If you havent raed his books, start now and your journey of the spirit will begin. He was a born writer and even after his passing continues to have a great influence on many people old and young. He truly lived a purposeful and divine life. Go buy all his books and enjoy the growth and enlightenment. After that Buy my Book " Your daily Walk with the Great Minds of the Past and Present". Enjoy and rememeber you are capable of great things in your life.

I really like the way the drama brings the Bible to life in a whole new way. It makes it more real when I can hear different voices. It also challenges me when I hear a verse interpreted differently than I interpret it. Overall, I really like it.

I'm in college for Biblical Studies and this saved me so much time reading that I'm able to complete the course and live my life at the same time. What a blessing this product is. This product is wonderful for listening at while at home, work or in the car. Thank you for creating this great product. Many blessing, TLM

I'm from Brazil, here we are using this item to learn English with the Bible.
The project is blessed and so is this item too.

It's a very good Audio version of the NIV Bible. The reading is clear and if you are interested in listening the Word Of God it's worthwhile buying it. I'm enjoying myself very much of listening to it and I'm also taking advantage of it to improve my English.

Adolfo J. Salgado

Hi, I have bought this CD but was not able to import it to my iPOD. Did I buy the wrong audio version? Can someone help explain? Thanks.