Social Sciences Books

I read all four books in this series in a week and read Breaking Dawn in two days. It was absolutely and wonderfully romantic and kept me on the edge of my seat during the entire read. Stephenie Meyer told a wonderful, satisfying story of how love creates and impacts our future and is always complicated. I won't give away any spoilers and I will keep it simple: this story absolutely takes you away and pulls you into every complicated but gratifying turn and twist. It is the stuff of classics. Congratulations, Stephenie on a wonderfully writtten saga - I loved every minute of it and mourned when it was all over. In a few weeks, I repeat it all over again.

There will be SPOILERS here. Like many of the reviews. Those of us disappointed (those of us disgusted . . . more overall disappointed) with the series, had to use SPOILERS in our reviews, so if you haven't read the book, and feel the need to - please be advised there will be spoilers.

I know this book wasn't written for me. Neither was Harry Potter, but that was an excellent series. Anyway, comparisons are not fair. And they are insulting to J.K. Rowling who actually threw in a strong female character.

I read "Twilight" because I am a fan of vampire stories - not because I think they are sexy or mysterious, because there is something fascinating about the sad embodiment of evil (sustaining your life off the lives of others) trying to justify its existence, trying to reconcile it's place in God's world, etc.

A friend picked up the book and based it on to me. Excellent read. Although it was 20 years ago for me, most women remember the blindness with which we love the first time. The first time. Then came "New Moon." I read it in a day. I couldn't pull myself a way, I risked injury reading on the treadmill. So powerful, so true, the way a 17-year-old mourns a broken heart, the pain from the loss of love and from just not understanding what the heck is going on, and how to deal with how you feel.

Then, it all falls apart. Again, I know it is not written for me. And, Ms. Meyer doesn't have a responsibility to create a respectable role model for young women today, the 46% of which will apparently be confronted with teen pregnancy by the age of 20 nowadays. She only had to write a story she is comfortable with and that someone will publish. By "Eclipse," I got bored. Anyway out of high school got bored. Again, I know I am not the audience for this book. Bella, so obsessed to the point of desperate with Edward, who has broken her heart, is pathetic. That after her devastating loss of him when he ditches her, after growing close to and trusting Jacob, she still throws herself 110% forgively at him, it's pathetic. It's sad that this character didn't learn to shield a piece of her heart for self preservation. Love him, save him, and desire imortality, but learn something from his desertion. Have some self-respect. But, she doesn't have to. She's not my character. I am not writing her. It's up to Ms. Meyer. The tragedy is by now the writing has become trite. It's simple. How many times must she write about Edward's beauty? It's really become something unfathomable. Unrealistic. Sickening. Trite because only a fool 30 pages into "New Moon" doesn't realize Jacob is a werewolf. Trite because my "Breaking Dawn" only a 12-year-old sneaking the book from her parents (or, at least, she should be) cannot figure out Jacob is going to imprint on Bella's daughter.

But, along comes "Breaking Dawn" and the completist in my needs to know if she chooses Edward (I have no doubt this pathetic girl will choose the one who has already shown her he will leave if he thinks it will make him feel better) or Jacob, who will love her and stand by her. So, three or four weeks later I still try to finish this book. On the one hand, everything is predictable. As I said, Jacob, to solve the love triangle, will imprint on Edward and Bella's daughter. Sure, okay. But Bella is pissed about it? How? Why? That's so untrue to the character who selfishly needed him by her side despite her fawning, devotion, admiration, sycophantism to Edward. But he's not good enough for your daughter? You know he would always stand by her, always protect her, but Bella doesn't accept this? It's not realistic to the character.

On top of the pregnancy, which is its own complication - Edward doesn't breathe, doesn't have a heartbeat, but he has live sperm? WTF? Anyway . . .

If there are teenagers who still enjoy this series, that's great. I hope a mother or aunt or big sister or someone is a role model in there life so they understand, especially in 2008, especially now, that a woman's worth does not have to be defined by a man, doe snot have to be determined by a man, and a woman's destiny or future does not have to follow that of the man she loves. Love is only love, and though it is wonderful enough, it's no good if you stop bringing anything to the table - if all you have to offer is devotion.

I am sad by the completion of this story because the first one was so enjoyable, because they were written by a woman, and because the writing turned to such dreg repeating over and over how unworthy Bella was to Edward, how plain she was to all the bloodsuckers, etc. So, I write this review in case you're a reader like me - in your 30s, reading the books because they are 600-pages of a quick read. To advise you this is really going to turn into teen-lit by the 4th book. I hope if you have bought it, you enjoy it. I hope Ms. Meyer's tries again and again. I won't give her writing another try, but if she gets people to read, that's great. I just hope her protagonists in the future are women worth admiring, worth following, going forward.

Breking Dawn is not my favorite in the series, but it deffintley is a good book.

ALL I CAN SAY IS I LOVED IT, I LOVED IT, I LOVED IT!! FOR ME IT REALLY COULDN'T HAVE ENDED ANY BETTER!

I was disgusted by this book. I give it one star for Bella's wedding. That should have been at the end of Eclipse.(and Jacob should have imprinted upon Alice, and the series should have ended there)I was a rabid fan, itching to get my paws on Breaking Dawn. And I wish I hadn't. Not only does Ms. Meyer completely depart from her original rules for the vampire world, but her vivid ability to write characters so that you care for them suffered horribly. i stopped reading after Jacob imprinted on the baby. That was disgusting, as was Bella in her human form drinking blood, and Rosalie ripping open Bella's stomach with her teeth so the child could breath. This book is nothing like the others. So many other problems. So sad. It should have been so much better.

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

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

This book is proving to be a valuable resource for outlining the writing "rules of the road". I'm in the midst of writing my doctoral dissertation and the APA Manual has proved extremely useful for learning the proper way to cite references from various sources (like telephone conversations), use combinations of unusual punctuation (should the comma go inside or outside this parentheses?), and for presenting statistical output and tables. I can see it continuing to be a useful reference for writing articles in professional journals as well since it offers guidance on writing manuscripts and authorship (which is a topic that can bring collaborators to fisticuffs!) I highly recommend this book!

The best thing that I ever did was to purchase the APA Manuel.
It has helped me with formating and the proper way to cite in text and referance in APA format. This book is much better than the Diane Hacker book on APA.

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

This story, about a single person who made it possible to build dozens of schools in Pakistan and Afghanistan for both boys and girls, provides a view into the people and culture of these two countries that is just so hard for Americans to get. If there is a better way for Americans to make the case for freedom, tolerance, and equality, peace, i certainly don't know what it could be.

Out of all the books I have read in my life so far this was the best. I have traveled the world in the past 5 years on mission's trips to help others. I must say this book has wanted to make me make a difference. I want to become a world changer because of it. Many times through out the book with the excellent writings of Relin and Mortenson I found myself standing and walking a side of Greg. I can't recommend this book enough. I have purchased many copies to give to friend's world wide. Please read it!!

Excellent book, highly impressed by Greg's efforts to educate girls in the part of the world, where even a local Pakistani would fear to start such a project. Greg certainly did a wonderful job of understanding and blending himself with the local people, inorder to fully understand poor village people's problems he related himself with the local people to an extent that, he could see their problem from their perspective. Mr.Relin has done justice in telling the story of Greg's epic journey. Two thumbs up highly recommended reading.

This is an outstanding story, well told. I think it should be required reading at the high school level. I also think every member of Congress should read it. It is not only heart warming, but really significant that one person can accomplish so much and to know that there are so many muslims that share or value of education for both boys and girls. It was also very educational about what is going on in that part of the world.

Good book but i have some questions about the book, but who will not have the. Overalla good book but the writer should keep one thing in mind that its hell lot of difference bw himalayas and USA. even in NYC whats right is totally obnoxious in West virginia!
100% recommended!!! worth reading!

Andrew Bacevich is a retired military man with 23 years of service behind him. He is currently professor of history and international relations at Boston University. A few years ago he wrote a book called The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War, in which he warned against the increasing militarization of American foreign policy. In the present work he returns to this topic. As a conservative critic of a nominally conservative administration his opinion is highly regarded. Many critics have called Bacevich a liberal, but this is not really accurate; he argues that the current administration has not really broken with the past, but is following an imperial agenda of which both liberals and conservatives are guilty.

In Bacevich's view the foreign policy created in the Beltway by the political classes reflects what they think people want: namely, an imperial policy that guarantees the contiuous flow of cheap oil and cheap consumer goods. The political establishment would have them believe that the projection of American military power is necessary to maintain our way of life.

In his critique of the Bush administration, Bacevich is exactly right. The neocons - Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz - saw 9/11 as an opportunity for the unrestrained use of American military power. They went as far as discrediting the State Department and even the CIA in order to concentrate all power in the Pentagon and the White House. All foreign policy became part of the Global War on Terror. This war was presented as a twilight struggle between good and evil.

Bacevich's indictment of the current administraion is accurate, but it is only accurate for Bush's first term. If one hasn't noticed the change of behavior in the second term, then one is blind. I would also take exception with his blanket indictment of all administrations since the end of World War II as imperial. Most presidents were keenly aware of the limits of American power and settled for multilateral action mediated by international institutions. In my view the Bush administration did break with the past with its policy of preventative war and the use of torture and illegal wiretapping.

In the case of Afghanistan, Bacevich misses a major point. The invasion was not to build a nation-state in our image, it was to go after the perpetrators of the deaths of 3,000 plus Americans. And leaving behind a more stable and less threatening government than that of the Taliban is not exactly as amibitious nation-building, but rather a sensible and pragmatic necessity.

On the whole liberal Democrats, more than conservative Republicans, have been disabused of the notion of American exceptionalism and the concomitant exercise military power. Bacevich fails to give liberal Democrats credit for seeing in advance the light of the arguments. A glaring defect of an otherwise very thoughtful book.

Andrew Bacevich was one of the best writers on American policy for a number of years. Unfortunately, his success as a writer has gone to his head leading to him jumping off the deep end with this book. Bacevich uses the book to speak on any number of subjects, many beyond his particular expertise. And worse yet, he has drifted into the orbit of the very people he should be critical of.

Bacevich ends up telling us the same old message: The standard of living for the average American is too high. The proletarian needs to be packed into coldwater tenaments in cities and put back to work in the mills. The entire foreign and miltiary policies of the US are somehow explained by the stupid greed of the average american living an undeserved lifestyle.

The author is at his worst when he tries to revive Jimmy Carter's blame Americans ideology from the 1970s. Jimmy Carter pointing at the majority of the American people and telling them that everything wrong in the world was their fault for being stupid, greedy and lazy. You lead by finding solutions not by blaming people. And if you want change in the country, you have to offer a positive solution. Telling people they need to be poor, that they need to get by with less and that their children should expect a worse life isn't an inspiring vision. Especially when people know that the elite like Bacevich are not going to be doing the suffering.

The author has no grasp of economics. He doesn't understand that American "deficits" are part of bigger problems that can't be solved by pretending the US is walled off from the world. The simple truth is that American trade and budget deficits are a reflection of much bigger global economic problems that reach beyond the united states. The idea that America can solve its "problems" in isolation is antique and dangerous. That world is long gone.

The book is correct in its apprasal that the US is unwilling to pay for the wars it thinks it needs. And the author is as usual dead-on in terms of any number of military and policy issues. But his broader political and economic arguments have taken him off the deep end into the brain-damaged self-hatred policies of Jimmy Carter from the 1970s.

You offer the American people blame and promise that they and their children need to live poorer and worse lives. The question is asked "in exchange for what"? And there is of course no answer. No amount of reduced living standards can recreate 19th century American isolationism. Bacevich has fallen into the trap of an enitrely negative ideology. I would hope that he finds his way out of it because he is still one of the great minds in the country on many subjects.

In his conclusion, Dr. Bacevich writes:

"Since the end of the Cold War, the tendency among civilians -- with President Bush a prime example -- has been to confuse strategy with ideology. The president's freedom agenda, which supposedly provided a blueprint for how to prosecute the Global War on Terror, expressed grandiose aspirations without serious effort to assess the means required to achieve them. Meanwhile, ever since the Vietnam War ended, the tendency among military officers has been to confuse strategy with operations."

Our political and military elite have lost the ability (assuming they ever had it after 1989) to think in strategic terms, to think of formulating national policy which reflects core national interests (strategy based on rational goals achieved through appropriate and existing means). Instead national power is used to further the interests of an ever narrower political/economic elite who think they can subvert/abuse US power in any way since the US is simply "too big to fail". They find the military option simply too tempting to use in a time of deteriorating US power in other areas.

The American people are driven by fear, and national policy is presented as a series of actions/reactions responding to an ever-increasing list of threats, all the while the actual interests involved are hidden by a compliant corporate media. The problems are systemic which means that whoever takes over in November the problems will remain the same, since as Bacevich writes, what America needs is a more modest foreign policy.

In strategic theory terms everything has come down to tactics - both at home and abroad - while operational art (as what Russia is doing now) and strategy (what has been sorely missing in "The Long War" - itself a strategic absurdity) is missing in action.

Read Bacevich's new book as yet another flashing red light on the road to national ruin.

This is an excellent book with many facts and figures that have shown have America has become more imperialistic in the past 48 years.

In this critique of American citizens, Bacevich takes a hard look at the citizenry's role in the current economic, political, and military crisis. The author is a retired colonel, which means I give a lot more credence to what he has to say. In fact, the gravitas between his advice and that of many others is a world apart.

I was pleased to see that he believes our misguided strategies ushering the nation into a global war of no exits and no deadlines cannot be blamed solely on the Bush Administration but rather on all of us. That is, the USA citizens. It may well be hard medicine to swallow but it needs to be taken regardless. And while, a doomsday picture is not being painted in this book, the author has far more faith in the masses than I do.

Great writing style combined with historical observations on our decline. Maybe people will "get it" and transform our culture before it is too late. I give this book 5 stars. I hope you find this review helpful. Michael L. Gooch, SPHR Author of Wingtips with Spurs

So, OK, I read that this series was as popular with tweens and teens as the Potter books. I read the first one.
Won't read the rest [though will probably go see the movie based on Twilight.] I've been around too many teens and too many tweens for way too long to be able to feel comfortable with the characterization of the protagonist. She may be in love, but I've not yet had the honor of meeting a girl that willing to endure pain and distancing from her peers. . . even though she is a LONER. [Her individuality is played up nicely, but the 9,000 or so I've known over the past 50 years, usually aren't as individualistic as they think.] She turns away from a loving father, a new place to live with new friends etc., and that is understandable given her non-prefrontal lobe development and age of 17, but to accept the physical and mental pain and stress is more than I can accommodate. I don't recommend this one. The writing seems a bit unpolished as well. Though I did like the imaginative details and set up of the vampires.

Hey! I am 37 years old and totally loved this book! I couldn't put the book down. What a romantic story. Not your average vampire story line. A very good book to take to the beach.

I was kind of hesitant to buy the book due to all the fuss, and having been a reader of the Anne Rice's Vamire Chronicles I was afraid I would be disappointed. I was not. This is young adult fiction to be sure but it was fun, and was not just a rehash of the same old vampire myths. It is first love but with a vampire. It does lack the richness of Anne Rice's writing but it was fun and entertaing which is why I read fiction.

I ABSOLUTELY LOVE THIS SERIES!!!! I have completely and totally fell in love with EDWARD and all of the characters of this series. It will make you laugh, cry, sad, scared, excited, worried, feel adored, and all of the above. I have never felt this way about a series of books in my life. After it was done I felt empty as if I just broke up with a boyfriend or something. A co-worker and I were reading them at the same time and we both just have felt lost. We need more.... She and I have been looking and can't find anything that comes close to the experience of reading this series. And she has read thousands of books. I hope that Stephanie Meyer doesn't leave her fans out there too long waiting for the next phenomenal series to start. We MISS EDWARD!!! (and Bell too)This is a MUST READ!!! If you don't enjoy this book you are insane!!!!

I saw this book on television and decided to buy it for one of my grandsons, whom is not a reader. Well, he finished this book, i bought him the seocnd one, he finished that one also, so he is now on his third book by in the series. I highly recommend buying the book for your teenage non reader. It could open up a whole new world to him/her.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I read this book a little while ago and didn't have time to review it, but the essential messages keep popping into my consciousness as I go about my day-to-day life. Before reading this book, for example, I had never realized that Corn has cunningly taken over the world and turned us all into "Corn People." Pollan's simple plan - to make three meals - turns into an exploration of all things wrong with the modern industrial food production and delivery system. Pollan's prose is wonderful and his thinking nothing short of brilliant. Even if some of his ideas are not completely original, as some critical reviews argue, this is still a remarkable book that will enrich your life - and the world, if enough people read it.

"Traffic" opens with the observation that, in situations involving a reduction of lanes, those merging as late as possible end up moving ahead much faster. I have taken advantage of that fact for years and felt somewhat guilty for doing so - until Vanderbilt also revealed that doing so speeds up overall traffic as well - 15%.

Readers also quickly learn that traffic has been an aggravation for thousands of years - Caesar banned carts and chariot traffic in Rome during the day to avoid congestion, while 1867 horses were killing an average of four pedestrians/week in New York City - higher than today's fatality rate. Bicycles have also sometimes been a source of traffic outrage.

Today more U.S. households own three cars than one, and having more cars means our driving has increased more than the population. In 1969 nearly half of American children walked or biked to school - now it is just 16%. An estimated 22% of restaurant meals are ordered through car windows in the U.S., and 1,200 CVS drugstores feature a drive-thru window.

The increase in American driving has mainly occurred among women - taking the kids to school, performing errands, etc. (Organized sports for children have doubled.) An estimated 83% of car pools are actually family pools toting family members around and taking no cars off the road. Vanderbilt contends that this undermines the purpose of car pool lanes.

Sometimes efforts to improve safety backfire, and "Traffic" explains why. For example, lengthening yellow lights extends the indecision zone, the number of cars in it, and the decisions about whether to stop or go - thus, the more chances to crash. Anti-lock brake systems and SUVs offer improved safety, but their drivers then drive more aggressively and negate that value.

Company cars are statistically the most hazardous.

Vanderbilt claims, with good justification, that drivers don't receive enough feedback to adequately improve their performance. "Drive Cam" cameras posted near the rear-view mirror and focused on the driver are one way of doing so. They have brought crash rate declines of 30-50% - recordings are kept whenever the driver breaks hard or makes a sudden turn.

Vanderbilt believes that the term "accident" is used too loosely - eg. covers stupid and deliberate actions such as speeding, DUI, texting while driving, etc. In addition, a survey of American car commercials showed that it is quite acceptable to show cars being driven in ways a panel labeled as "hazardous" - especially driving at high speed.

A large study in Virginia co-sponsored by the NHTSA found almost 805 of crashes and 65% of near crashes involved drivers not paying attention to traffic for up to three seconds prior.

"Traffic" provides evidence supporting congestion pricing, citing evidence finding minor volume reductions resulting from such. (Minor volume reductions often lead to significant congestion reductions.)

Vanderbilt cites studies finding that 70% of car-truck crashes are caused solely by the car driver.

Americans have a 1% chance of being killed in an auto accident during their life-times. Low-speed drivers are more likely to get into accidents than relatively high-speed drivers.

Men are involved in fatal crashes at a rate almost 2X that of women.

The only bad news about "Traffic" is that it sometimes bogs down in too many studies, especially conflicting ones.

Terrific premise. I wanted so badly to love this book. Now I'm just thankful I got it from the library - don't waste your money! Almost all of his observations are developed from anecdotes. And anyone who's spent time on the road has similar anecdotes and can develop similar observations. Trouble is, there's almost no rigorous science. Very little consistency, or even logic, either. The author has some stuff to say that he thinks is interesting, and says it. He doesn't actually provide any enlightenment.

This might be a good book to read if you're a passenger in heavy traffic, but by any other name and in any other location, Tom Vanderbilt's exceptionally good new book, "Traffic", offers a comprehensive look at a larger picture... how we are as drivers, theories of how highway build-ups begin and end, driving in other parts of the world, and so on. Vanderbilt manages to conflate physics, geometry and psychology into a narrative that flows as easily as cars on a country highway. It is a mini-encyclopedia and surprises abound...especially about the human nature of driving.

"If you build it they will come", a near quote from "Field of Dreams", is just one aspect of traffic upon which Vanderbilt comments. New road construction tends to bring more cars and while this may be one thing that many of us have suspected, the author verifies it then steers us into other areas of our lives on the road which might take us aback. We tend to think we drive at different speeds than we actually do, for instance, or take more risks with newer cars. But it's the depth of "Traffic" which is so impressive and makes this one of the most fascinating books of the year. I highly recommend it.

I have been in highway engineering for 20 some years and I found this to be a very good read. I already was aware of much that he discussed, but there was a lot of new material also. This book was well researched and is a good place to start if you want to learn about traffic in general, and if you want to pursue it further the notes will take you there. I recommend reading it if for no other reason than the understanding that you will attain about what is going on when you are on the freeways and streets of our cities.

Driving, at least in America, is an activity that is oddly personal. Our cars, the way we drive, how we handle bad traffic, are so much a part of ourselves, that we bristle, or worse, when someone criticizes our choice of car, the way we drive, or our behavior in traffic.

When I read several (professional) reviews of Traffic, it was hard to believe that they were all about the same book. The reviews seemed to reflect the personalities, the insecurities, the preferences of the reviewers. I was learning more about the reviewers than about the book. Then when I'd read the book, I found that the parts that stuck with me had not been mentioned in any of the reviews I'd seen.

For instance, I was fascinated to read about "Sabbath Timing" of traffic lights at some 75 Los Angeles intersections. From sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday every week, and on certain holidays, they are programmed to flash the walk signal every signal rotation, whether anyone presses the button or not. This is so the orthodox Jews in those neighborhoods cross the streets without pressing the button, which would be against the rule not to use any machines. The city planners considered an alternate solution that would use sensors to detect if a pedestrian was waiting to cross the street, but consultations with local rabbis determined that that would not be in keeping with the restriction.

Another tidbit: all drivers believe they are better than average. Not surprising actually, but still interesting.

A factoid that applies to more than just traffic: most people prefer one long line rather than many short lines, such as that at Wendy's vs. the lines at McDonald's, even if the wait is longer with the long line. We like the "social justice" of the single line, in which no one can pick the "right" line and be served ahead of those who waited longer in the slower lines.

Traffic is a thoroughly-researched book with lots of data and over a hundred pages of end notes and index. Vanderbilt knows his traffic. But so do we. So here are my own observations about traffic.

I spent many years commuting to work in the Bay Area, a 140-mile round trip, on several different shifts, and including right after the Loma Prieta Earthquake, when the Bay Bridge, a critical portion of my commute, was being repaired after a large section fell into the Bay. In all the years spent commuting, the traffic did not strike me as being especially idiosyncratic. It was awful and I hated it, but it seemed no worse or better than most places.

Las Vegas, on the other hand, is a different kettle of fish. The drivers here have a real "double or nothing" mentality. I quickly learned to hurry through all yellow lights and to check the rear view mirror before stopping at red lights. The alternative was to be rear-ended.

Avoid the temptation (difficult in Las Vegas) to make quick starts when the light turns green. Wait for at least two more cars to go through the intersection and check to see if anyone else is going to run the red. Then go. Jaywalking is very common, and so are accidents resulting from jaywalking.

In spite of all this, I continue to be surprised that school zone speed limits are religiously observed. Even at the school zone on a main street that covers several blocks, the traffic slows to 15 mph and no one cheats. I never see any police cars skulking in the vicinity, so I can't explain this apparent anomaly. The substandard school system seems to rule out the possibility that Las Vegans care more about the welfare of their children than do other communities. It's just one of those local quirks, I guess.

The first time we went to Rome, I fell in love. With the traffic. It was wild, uncontrolled, anarchic, insane! After a few minutes, it seemed less so. In fact, it was beautiful. Everyone was moving in a synchronized way, ignoring signs, signals, crosswalks, but completely aware of the other cars and the pedestrians. Unlike in North America, the Romans did not come to a stop unless absolutely necessary, and then for as short a time as possible. We learned, as every visitor to Rome does, that pedestrians wait for a small break in the traffic, stride confidently into the street, making eye contact or appearing stylishly aloof, your choice, but moving at a constant pace across the street. Traffic will slow slightly, move around you, and you will be incorporated into the flow. You must do what is expected, no sudden moves, no stopping in the middle of the street.

Yes, most of the drivers are driving one-handed, telefonino in the other hand. But they are all aware of the traffic around them. Here, we stare straight ahead in our individual cocoons, passive-aggressively making the other guy go around us when we refuse to acknowledge his presence.

Traffic is the perfect book to listen to while in traffic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is an absolutely fantastic book on globalization and the frightening and inspiring realities of its growing potential. A great piece.

This is pretty typical business journalism, which seems to be in the mold of the last round of "sky is falling" business journalism from the 1980's...when Japan was going to rule the world. I thought this book was going to be something new, but its just the same-old, same-old: US jobs are going oversees, we don't have enough engineers, republicans are ruining the country, blah, blah, blah. Also, the book is pretty sloppy: its overly long and redundant, and the "research" is not at all comprehensive or balanced, but mostly just opinion from various business honchos with views biased by their own business interests.

It is written from a very U.S.-centric view of the world, namely that the role of the rest of the world is to do the grunt work that we're too talented and creative to do, and also with a certain amazement that there are people in other countries as smart, or smarter, than us! I find it inconsistent as well, with one chapter lamenting the decline of U.S. science and engineering education and how this will be our downfall in the flat world, and another chapter promoting liberal arts education, and "story telling", as the keys to success in the flat world. Also, the flat world in this tome seems to be made up almost exclusively of IT workers: what about the transportation industry, or other traditional, but still relevant industries?

Overall, an interesting topic with some nice observations, but in need of a major editing and more credible research. Also, it is better viewed as a discussion of trends in IT outsourcing, rather than a map of where the world as a whole is headed.

The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down
Never received the book. Was very upset. Would never utilize a 3rd party buyer again. A complete waste of my time.

Well-written, gripping, thoughtful, thorough investigation into the tragic and seemingly unavoidable events in the life of a sick young girl and her loving family. Everyone wanted the best, but it all went terribly wrong. A compelling example of why we all need to keep learning from each other.

As the title implies, this book offers an alternative perspective of epilepsy, or seizures, as seen through the lens of the Hmong people. It also provides a fresh view of Western so-called civilization itself, and most particularly Western medicine.

I doubt there's any American today who doesn't harbor at least some ambivalence about how medicine's practiced in the United States, and I'm not just talking bills and insurance. Foua and Nao Kao Lee didn't trust the doctors who tended to their baby daughter Lia when she began to have seizures; they worried about doing damage to their baby's soul. In the Hmong culture, sickness is a signal of disturbance to the soul, and healing is a matter of tending to that soul. When did you last see an American doctor do that?

Even had the doctors who cared for Lia known of this tenet of the Lees' belief system, they probably wouldn't have given it consideration. As things were, they knew little about their patient's family: not only did the Lees not understand English, but the Hmong culture is so far from that of anything remotely American, the doctors hadn't the ears to hear, eyes to see, or consciousness to absorb any of it. To them, as to many Americans, the Hmong are a "Stone Age" people, ignorant and superstitious.

Certainly Hmong rituals and healing ceremonies are strange and arcane--but no stranger than those of the Catholic or Jewish faith: all utilize symbols, whether it's wine standing in for the blood of Jesus, drops of wine spilled onto a plate for Egyptian plagues, or a wooden bench transformed into a winged horse carrying a healer in search of a sick person's soul. Why is it that the good citizens of the United States laugh only at the latter?

Writer Anne Fadiman decided to look at American medicine through the prism of Lia Lee's sad story. She discovered, and conveyed to readers, the richness of Hmong culture, devoid of sentimentality. Fadiman is careful not to imbue the Hmong with the kind of romanticism that European Americans tend to hold about Native Americans: she does not evade the fact that they can be extremely difficult. By allowing them full humanity, she brings them vividly to life the same way a novelist does her characters--though non-fiction, thi book is as compelling as a great novel.

The Hmong came to America in the 1980s courtesy of war in Southeast Asia. They'd been living in the mountains of Laos, to which they'd migrated from China. The Hmong never assimilate into the culture of the country they inhabit, and have suffered persecution for centuries. Much like the Roma or the Jews, they're a migratory tribe without a homeland--but I doubt they ever felt quite as displaced as they did when they got to the United States. Because they helped the CIA in Laos, the Hmong were promised they'd be welcome in the U.S.--but when the troops left, they jetted only generals and hotshots out of the country, leaving the rest of the populace to fend for themselves. With the Laotian army hunting them down as enemies of the state, Hmong families set off on foot, carrying whatever they could manage. Many, particularly the old and the young, died along the way. Most possessions were shed, too heavy to carry, on the days-long journey. When they arrived in Thailand they were placed in refugee camps, where they waited to be rescued by the Americans. Those who were finally brought to America were `resettled' all over the map, without regard for family cohesion or transferability of survival skills: in Detroit, Minneapolis, Utah, Vermont--the Hmong were distributed all over the country so as to not unduly `burden' any one locality.

The Hmong tend to have large broods of 12 or 13 children, who they deeply adore, and they view disability as a consequence of some parental transgression, for which they atone by treating children with disabilities extra lovingly. They're used to living near relatives, who they see frequently, if not daily. The diaspora of the Hmong represented unspeakable hardship--which they resolved with what they call their `second resettlement.'One family would pack up a hastily purchased jalopy and drive off, looking for a spit of land hospitable to growing vegetables and the herbs necessary for healing rituals. They'd end up where all pioneers do, in California, and send news to relatives in Detroit or Chicago or Billings, Montana. Eventually, pockets of Hmong were clustered in a few locations around the country. Of these, Merced, California, where the Lee family settled, is one of the largest.

About one in every six residents of Merced, formerly an all-white rural area, is now Hmong. Here their culture and community thrived, parallel to the dominant culture, assimilating as little as possible. One way they did have to assimilate is medically: since 80% receive some form of government assistance, social services closely monitor them. American social workers do not have a high level of tolerance for cultural difference, and many Hmong practices, like gardening on the living room floor, or animal sacrifice, put parents in danger of losing their children to foster care--an unthinkable consequence that did occur, for a period of time, to Lia Lee.

The Hmong had heard about Western medicine even before arriving on these shores. They approved of antibiotics--swallow a pill and get well in a week--but not of much else. Surgery was anathema, since cutting the flesh or removing organs risks the flight of the soul. When their daughter Lia fell into the hands of the medical establishment, the Lees suffered deep agony over every procedure, from IV insertion to spinal taps.

Fadiman explores the interactions between the Lees and their daughter's medical caretakers in exhaustive detail. Whenever Lia suffers a setback, the Lees blame the doctors and their methods. The doctors accuse the Lees of "noncompliance" when they fail to properly dose Lia with three different kinds of anti-convulsants at the various times of day prescribed, not realizing that the Hmong don't even use clocks. Fadiman presents a balanced picture, blaming neither the family nor the hospital, but cultural barriers, for what goes wrong--and eventually things do go terribly wrong. By the age of four Lia is brain dead. The hospital hooks her up to feeding tubes, expecting her to die within days, but the Lees insist on taking her home, where they disconnect every tube and treat Lia as a favored family member. They take turns carrying her around on their backs; like a mama bird, Foua pre-chews her daughter's food and feeds it to her orally; they sacrifice pigs in healing ceremonies; and Lia sleeps with her parents every night. To the astonishment of the medical community, Lia does not die, and by the end of the book, years after being declared brain dead, she's still alive. As I write this, Lia Lee is still alive and lovingly cared for by her mother and siblings. Her medical condition has not changed. Her father, Nao Kao Lee, died in January of 2003.

This book enriched, and possibly changed, my life. I can't recommend it too highly.

A fascinating case study of a Hmong family's profoundly frustrating encounter with a county medical center in rural California. The book is very well written, and gave me fresh insight into what it really means for us to be a "nation of immigrants." My only frustration was with the organization of the book. As it jumped backed and forth between the micro and the macro, and between the recent and more distant past, the narrative lost some of its momentum. But that said, it is one of those rare books that has made me look at the world in a new way, and for that reason, I highly recommend it.

This was an outstanding book. You may need to be a social anthropologist at heart to really love it, but the book was so enlightening on so many different levels. The background and customs of the Hmong are fascinating, and their clash with western culture is eye opening. I learned so much, not just about the Hmong, but about my own beliefs.

With 900 other reviews, I'll keep this one short. The Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell is an enormously interesting read. It tries to answer the question why and how certain ideas 'tip'. How they spread and become popular. Malcolm uses a huge amount of interesting stories from different domains to try to make his points. For me, the collection of stories was probably more interesting than the points he tried to make. The stories were well written.

Related to tipping, he argues that there are three rules related to an social epidemic. The law of the few (a few people can have a huge impact), the stickiness factor (a message can be constructed to be more sticky) and the power of context (the context can influence the message which is being spread enormously). The rest of the book contains chapters related to each of these rules. Every chapter summarizes the rules and tells stories of where the rule applied.

Tipping Point is extremely well written and easy to read. The bunch of amazing stories make it fun and it's no wonder that it's one a major best sellers in the world. I found the message the author tries to communicate less interesting, though. Never the less, I'd recommend the book to everyone for the sake of the stories and the learning that can be taken out of every individual story.

I've heard Malcolm Gladwell speak, and he's superb! In this innovative book, whether he's referring to the Maven, or the Connector, it's relatable to all individuals. If you're looking for a light leadership book that brings up very INNOVATIVE topics, this is it! For additional tips on leadership, I'd also recommend taking a course at www.corporatetrendsetters.com.

With social networking and user generated content (UGC) flooding the web, businesses are struggling to find ways to harness and direct this power. There exists an extensive collection of blogs, books, news articles and podcasts that offers advice about techniques to jump-start user adoption and gain stickiness, but these tend to focus on execution and not on concept. The dialogue generally advocates creating new communities, controlling messages within existing communities, and monetizing concepts, but fails to answer the fundamental question, "Why do people adopt certain ideas and not others?"

Enter Malcolm Gladwell's book, The Tipping Point. This is not a new book. It was published in 2002 and doesn't mention a single Internet technology or concept, instead focusing on how "epidemics" spread - From Paul Revere's success in his midnight ride to why kids love Blue's Clues to syphilis' spread in Baltimore in the mid-90's. Gladwell dissects the masses and exposes the population segments that serve as the kindling for raging success.

Connectors - The people that know everyone and revel in making mutually beneficial introductions. These are the catalysts or accelerants that help bring the key components together.

Mavens - The experts. These are the people that know everything about certain topics. Everyone has friends that they trust when it comes to food, music, sports, electronics, etc., the friends that are almost freakishly knowledgeable and passionate about their interests.

Sales people - These are the people that sell ideas and visions - the evangelists. They get people excited and spread the word - like the sales person mentioned in the Holiday Inn commercial that once had a heart attack and within an hour had sold the paramedics 12 sets of steak knives.

If you can come up with a great product or offering that has amazing value for those that take advantage of it, you're off to a good start, but the challenge is just beginning. The Tipping Point presents some of the foundational relationships and interactions that must occur to be successful. Coupling the above personality traits with a discussion of the various adopter types - from Innovators to Late Adopters - and you have a powerful recipe. Blending together the right mix of Connectors, Mavens, and Sales People with Early Adopters sets the stage for success... then all you need is a phenomenal idea. Easy right?

I recommend the book.

Marcel Crudele
innerEcho - Atlanta, GA

"The Tipping Point - How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference" by Malcolm Gladwell gave me insight into trends as seen through his eyes. I loved it!

Gladwell caught me off-guard when he discussed the racial tipping point that affects the real estate market of a neighborhood. But that was not the most surprising. What surprised me the most was how low a percentage of new property owners could influence the change from a sellers market to a buyers market.

There were many times when he seemed to veer off his subject and I started wondering where he was going with the point of the story. Then he would pull it all together and I could see exactly why he said something the way he said it.

Gladwell points out common traits in typical public interest/popularity and how that relates to sales and marketing.

In each example, he explains the patterns that show the slow beginnings, the steeper climb, to the sharp growth in popularity to the hesitation at the top, then the crash and (except for a few examples) a sudden end of all growth.

His intention is to provide enough information to duplicate or create a path towards a tipping point in your business. And, with the proper actions, manipulate how long your business is able to remain at the top of the sales chart.

I was surprised that Gladwell used stories about the popular children's show Sesame Street in his examples. But, once I read his in-depth, behind-the-scenes stories, I realized how complex and how much innovative thought went into producing that very successful television show.

Now, I find myself paying closer attention to eye, face, and body position and movement when I discuss business (and personal) matters. And, I am noticing the signals I (un-intentionality) send to others.

Gladwell is able to describe and chart the same patterns of tipping points in every example he gave. He investigates the how, why, where, and when of his research. Then he presents it to his readers in easy to digest pieces.

His description of Connectors, Mavens, and Salespeople is clear and fascinating. It is easy to visualize how the traits of connectors, mavens, and salespeople live in each of us.

One of the most interesting viewpoints Gladwell shared, was that there are only three elements that create change. The first element is "The Law of the Few." You'll have to read his book to find out Gladwell's other two agents of change.

By the way: It was fun taking Gladwell's Manhattan Phone Book Test. I scored eighty-seven points the first time around. After thinking about it, I believe I could add another ten to thirty surnames to my known contacts list.

I strongly recommend you read and then use Gladwell's information to create your own (series) of tipping points for your business' growth.

And while you're at it, get involved in replacing broken windows, painting walls and cleaning up areas in need. (Read the book and you'll understand.)

Little things can make a huge difference when properly executed/initiated.

The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference

The concept behind this book is what makes it such a phenomenon. It was not only great concept-wise, but it was an engaging read. I wouldn't call it pure entertainment (some portions could be dry) but it was definitely easy to get through the whole thing and actually enjoy it. I recommend this book to anyone looking for more info on the idea of how things that seem obscure, go on to gain enormous popularity and spark trends or fads.