Extension Books

Superb photography of a supreme sport,a class book

F. Marion Crawford's "The White Sister" was originally published in 1909, the year of Crawford's death. At the turn of the last century, he was a popular novelist, remembered more today for several of his spookier tales. This story is a bit dated in places. The author comments on his story, almost like a news correspondent commenting on what it's like to report the news. Several of his observations are undoubtedly dated, such as his views on the emotional nature of women. That said, most of the main characters are women. I particularly laughed at his opinions about the French regarding themselves as a superior culture that no one else in Europe could quite comprehend.

This story may strike a modern audience as a bit melodramatic, but it does hold one's attention with good pacing and well-defined characters. Crawford lived a long time in Italy. The Italian setting and culture flavors the story throughout. Angela Chiaromonte is a young woman whose mother died during her childhood and whose wealthy father dies as we begin the tale. Her fortune is stolen by a domineering aunt who uses legal technicalities and a bit of dishonesty to settle an old family grudge. This leaves the angelic young woman homeless and penniless, taken under care by her former tutor, the noble and French Madame Bernard. While with Bernard, Angela informally agrees to be married to a young military officer Giovanni Severi. By several plot twists, Giovanni is honor bound to take a dangerous military assignment to Africa during which he is believed to be killed. This forces Angela to a nunnery where she becomes a skilled nurse at the order of the White Sisters. Giovanni's brother Ugo Severi is wounded at a nearby Italian garrison and taken to the convent hospital for care. Giovanni escapes his captures and returns to Rome five years later, only to find his true love now a nun and promised to God.

This sets up the real issue of the story about one's commitment to God vs. one's more human desires. Each works hard to honorably uphold their commitments, but Giovanni feels life is not worth living without the girl he loves. Several other plot twists occur that send us rushing to Crawford's tidy climax.

While dated in many ways with the characters being duty and honor bound, I found this a most enjoyable reading experience. Although from this reader's perspective a century later I could have thought of other alternatives for the characters to pursue, theirs is a sweet romantic tale in which events and circumstance proves able to do what honor may not accomplish. Read the novel as a timepiece; and I think you will find it very sweet. The 1917 edition I had has still pictures from a silent movie made from the book. Enjoy!

This is an important topic given the embarrassing fact of the modern return of Slavery in the midst of the European Enlightenment. Indeed, even the United States, the first nation produced by the Enlightenment, was a home to modern slavery. What was this 'enlightened' slavery, and how did it differ from the ancient variety? Hmmm... So, how do we go about distinguishing between ancient and modern slavery? Ancient slaveholders originally were masters and knew they were masters because they excelled at violence. They had won a war; the slaves had lost. When questioned more deeply about their amazing string of victories, the Romans would generally point to their pietas, which is a religious notion. Now, is this the difference between ancient and modern slave societies? That in modern times we try to give a 'scientific explanation' of events?

President Jefferson, a man renowned for his love of freedom, in the midst of a terrifyingly 'scientistic' discussion of "the real distinction that nature has made" informs us that blacks are "in reason much inferior" to whites, and "in imagination they are dull, tasteless, and anomalous." Mercifully, the man we remember every Fourth of July had the grace to concede the possibility, even the necessity, that "further observation will or will not verify the conjecture, that nature has been less bountiful to them in the endowments of the head", because "where our conclusion would degrade a whole race of men from the rank in the scale of beings which their Creator may perhaps have given them" we must indeed be cautious!

The Romans, of course, never dreamed of denying the humanity of their slaves. Obviously, this is cold comfort to those unfortunate enough to lose a war to Rome! Modern slaveholders, in contrast, would try to ground their slaveholding in science, not violence; in fact, not force. And it is this penchant for science that is both the difference between ancient and modern slavery, and, ironically, the beginning of modern racism. Now, this difference has consequences and causes.

To find one of the causes let's look at the practice of manumission, the freeing of slaves. Finley tells us that a freed Roman slave became "transformed from an object to a subject of rights, the most complete metamorphous one can imagine." How? How was it possible for people whose families had been slaves for generations to become free? Or rather, why, in 'enlightened' Virginia, did it not happen? Again Finley, "Freedmen in the New World carried an external sign of their slave origin in their skin color, even after many generations, with negative economic, social, political and psychological consequences of the gravest magnitude. Ancient freedman simply melted into the total population within one or at the most two generations."

Were ancient plebeians aware of this? - That former slaves worked, lived and (Gasp!) intermarried among them? Finley reminds us of stories in Tacitus and Pliny of plebeians rioting when local slaves were killed en masse, as Roman law required, for the assassination of a master. Not only does it appear the plebeians knew, but they also approved and identified with the slaves! The contrast with modern American slavery - the poor whites quasi-mystical belief in their 'superiority' to black slaves, and the certainty that this aligned them with the masters - is too obvious, and too depressing, to mention.

So, ancient slaves, upon manumission, were able to melt into the lowest Roman classes, while freed Blacks could never simply become part of society, however poor. What of it? Is this enough to explain the differences of modern and ancient slavery? No, of course not. To explain why ancient slavery never developed a crackpot ideology like racism to both justify and defend itself, and, on top of that, to create a horrid cultural pseudo-immortality for itself, we have to look elsewhere.

But first, what did our ancient slaves do, by and large, with their new found freedom? Finley shows us that, in the long run, being freed in the early empire was no great favor. He tells a depressing story of ever increasing taxes and barbarian invasions combining to force citizens to seek some sort of relief in service to either the empire or a great lord. "From the time of Augustus on, everything changed, [...] the state no longer permitted the peasant to vote or needed his fighting power, [however] it continued to need his money, in increasing quantities [...] by Justinian's reign the state took between one fourth and one third of the gross yield of the land". And elsewhere he mentions "the extent of the financial and material damage inflicted by [...] continuous civil war in the third century and by the persistent assaults thereafter of Germans, of Persians in the east..."

These combined to force the peasants and the urban poor into some form of debt service. In late antiquity one's poor cousins were always in danger of losing their freedom, whether selling it for protection to some lord or losing it in court for unpaid taxes. That is why the ancients, in the long run, could never base slavery or servitude on some pseudo-biological theory, the next slave could be a relative or, and this is really the heart of the matter, themselves. Slavery in antiquity could happen to almost anyone, while that was really never the case in eighteenth or nineteenth century America. That was the fundamental difference between ancient and modern slavery.

The consequences of this difference are revealed with terrifying clarity in the twentieth century. Modern 'scientific' racism, whether encountered in President Jefferson or Comte de Gobineau, comes to its ultimate fruition in Hitler, who is the cause of so many of our century's horrors. Among the consequences of the Enlightenment, many of which are indisputably good, is the notion that everything can, should and will eventually be explained by science. History is reeling under the weight of bigots and quacks who were able to 'justify' their manias 'scientifically'. When you have proven that your enemy is not fully human, by supposedly scientific means, all you have shown is that you no longer believe you have to behave humanely toward him. Some of the consequences of this pseudo-scientific ranting include the Holocaust and Bosnian ethnic cleansing.

Tocqueville, who was a friend of Gobineau, somewhere remarked to him, "I believe your theories are wrong, I know they are dangerous." Precisely. What gave poor Roman citizens the ability to accept freed slaves as their own, or allowed the Roman aristocracy the latitude to have their children educated by slaves is simply this: they never denied the humanity of their slaves. They had yet to come under the sway of modern 'enlightened' ideology. This is why, pace Messieurs Gobineau and Jefferson, ancient slaves (whether from Europe, Asia, or Africa) could teach the children of their masters or excel in the various sciences and arts. - No one had thought of a 'reason' to deny that they could.

After having read several books and listened to hundreds of hours of TV dealing with President G.W.Bush;I almost passed up this book. For one reason,it was published in 2002 ,and certainly most people feel they know all there is to know about him.So,how do we know all this? We make up our minds based on our politics or on what we are fed by the media;and that is hugely biased on the editorial slant and agenda of the media we are listening to or following. It seems to me, that the reporters and op.ed. writers only ask questions for which they hope to get a reply that fits their political leanings ;or write a piece on something negative even when there is much that is positive that is more important.In my humble opinion,it should be the medias role to report the whole picture and to let the political hacks do the biased politicking.
The author,Frank Bruni,covered Bush's presidential campaign for the New York Times, and in this book he has done an excellent job of giving the reader a remarkable insight into the real character of the President.The thing that really surprised me,was that I expected this book to more reflect the "thinking" of the NY Times ;and that would not be a balanced or conservative approach. I was hardly into the book when I realized that Bruni was making a genuine attempt to really show what kind of a person G.W. Bush really was.This did not change as he kept true to that principle from the time he closely followed him from before the Primaries till well after 9/11.
Bruni spent endless hours with Bush and his family while on the campaigns,travelling ,press conferences,in his homes,and during a lot of down time and "off the record" conversations.He gives us endless verbatum quotes from Bush and you will be amazed at the openess with which Bush and his family talks.
Where most politicians are consumed by unrelenting blind political ambition;you will see that Bush is an exception.He has his deeply held values and convictions that are far more important to him than political agendae.These beliefs can be troubling to many on both sides of politics,but as far as Bush is concerned,that is their problem;not his.When he found himself occupying the office of the President of the United States;he knew it would be difficult,but more important ,he would give it everything he had,and with the help of God and any other resources he could muster;he would try his best to serve and protect his country.
One would think that in the world of politics ,a book like this would be dated by now, Not so.You may or not "like" him,agree or disagree with his politics or party;but after reading this book;you can sure see why he operates in the way he does.He knows he may not always be right and if he is convinced that an alternate path is correct,he will take it.
The fact that Bush does not "fit" the Washington Beltway mold for a politican;is the reason that the media has such a problem with him.
The reason I would recommend this book is that,regardless of your politics;Bruni has cut through all the fog and exposes the Bush's real character.
Bruni gives us numerous personal quotes from Bush.One I liked was;
"Well,there are some things over which I have no control and some I can influence, and I'm able to distinguish between the two."
When you understand where Bush "comes from";you can see why he believes his prime responsibility with The War On Terror is the security of the country,and he will do whatever it takes "On My Watch!"

This book is a politically-motivated libel. The author tries unsuccesfully to hide his aversion to the Bush family, not only toward the President, but also toward his parents and his wife Laura. The book is not worth its weight in paper.

Frank Bruni, a New York Times reporter, wrote a perceptive and eloquent book about the candidate whose campaign he covered in 1999-2000 and the president of the months previous to 9/11, when he was part of the White House press corps. With eye for the big and the small details, he tries a search for George W. Bush. But, as seems always the case in this kind of books, he succeeds, but only partially. Nevertheless, the answers to these failures stand clear in the book itself. I think it has to do something with misunderstimation.

Analysts, journalists and all kinds of pundits, it seems, start at the wrong place: they measure Bush against the traditional political standards and, when he just doesn't fit into them, well, the problems begin. "In many regards, the Bush I knew did not seem to be built for what lay ahead. The Bush I knew was part scamp and part bumbler, a timeless fraternity boy and heedless cutup, a weekday gym rat and weekend napster, an adult with an inner child that often brimmed to the surface or burst trough". What Bruni and others see as limitations, I think, could well be the essence of the success behind George W. Bush in the eyes of many people. In a time where professional politicians are always so self-righteous and pretend to have the right answers to all the problems around, Bush and his unpretending and fallible human nature are a breeze of fresh air.

So, when reading this book, you have to look for the real Bush, the one whose own self and voice keeps joyfully and intelligently jumping out here and there troughout the text, no matter what his disciplinarians (like Karen Hughes) do to enforce him, or the journalists (like Bruni himself) think about it.

Bruni's book deserves five stars because he tries really hard to measure Bush against those all traditonal standards and, in the way, inadvertently discovers Bush to the reader. Another plus is his exceptionally intelligent assesment of the role the press plays in "constructing reality" and not just reporting it. Sure it does. And it's part of the misunderestimation of George W. Bush.

Read it, you won't be dissapointed.

I liked this book because it paints the good and bad about George W. Bush. Bruni covered the Bush Campaign for the New York Times. In this book, he reveals the real George Bush and the close election of 2000. There were lots of colorful insight and also jokes played during this campaign. What this book revealed was an uncomplicated man who was seeking the presidency. Bush also could laugh at himself, including his fumbling of the English language. The Presidency was not his all consuming passion as it was for Al Gore. This knowledge validated my vote for Bush.
Bruni covers only the campaign and the aftermath of the election. There is only a little background history of Bush before his presidential run. There are no photos in this book. The book is strictly a look at Bush's run for the White House in 2000.

On the 3 July 2004 Fox News Watch member Neal Gabler implied that Frank Bruni was something of a cheer leader for George W Bush in the 2000 election.

That is not something a dispassionate reader would claim after reading Bruni's account in this book, essentially a campaign journal of Bruni's travels on the 'Zoo plane,'and elsewhere during that frantic presidential election.

Overall Bruni is mildly critical of his subject, but often in a funny way, particularly with the then Republican candidate's mangling of the English language -something that Bush is able to laugh at himself over (a good trait).

The book is not a must-read, and is now dated being published in early 2002, but it does give some idea of how manic and maniac campaign life is for both journalists and candidates.

Bush is revealed as a man with an impish sense of humour but also one that developed newfound gravity after the horrific attacks on his country, in September 2001, and a leader who takes the trappings of the presidency seriously. On one occasion he forgot to salute a marine as he boarded his helicopter, Marine One, to go to Camp David but once inside he remembered his failure and so returned to salute the startled guard!

If you like a gossipy style account of elections then this book is an enjoyable enough light read

When Succat's town is under attack, he is captured and sent to Ireland. He's mistaken for a commoner. Instead of being instead of being ransomed as would happen if they knew he was a noble, he's sent to be a slave.

When the master shepherd dies, Succat becomes a druid and soon falls in love. Later he makes it back to his home, just to find it in ruins.

This is an adventurous story about true love, loss, and finding your way back again.

pretty good adventure story. kinda gets weird towards the end but satisfying ending. i am not literature proffessor or anything just a guy who likes good stories.

I've read the Celtic Crusades and Byzantium, so I feel I'm fairly acquainted with Lawhead's style. This book is a prime example of his works and was a good read for several reasons. First of all, Lawhead's pace is second to none. He doesn't dwell on tedious image dumps or have lengthy, hard-to-follow dialogue. Also, the way the book is organized is well thought-out, with the four names of Patrick serving as sections of the book. Lawhead is one of the better authors when it comes to using tactile images, such as the blistering cold or horrendous beatings the main character endures.

My only gripe is that the book wasn't longer and didn't explore the later life of Patrick as much as I would have liked. Perhaps the author didn't feel it important, but I believe this addition would have been welcome.

Simply as a fictional novel, this work by Lawhead is an excellent read. BUT as a biography, it's a false account of Patrick's life.

Read St. Patrick of Ireland: A Biography by Phillip Freeman, which has good translations of St. Patrick's surviving letters. Read Patrick's known, fascinating writings and compare them to Stephen Lawhead's Patrick: Son of Ireland. Lawhead hugely diverges from many of the known facts of Patrick's life.

My husband started me reading Lawhead and up until Patrick, I enjoyed his writing. We are very careful on the content of what we read and Lawhead had, thus far, been very morally clean. However, within the first 50 pages he includes lewd details of sexual relationships. I do not know anything about the historical Patrick, but this information was not necessary at all. If it had stopped I might not be writing this review, but the sexual promiscuity continues throughout the book in detail. While I very much enjoyed Hood and Scarlet as well as the Pendragon Cycle, I have nothing good to say about Patrick. Even the theology is loose and liberal. It made me wonder if Lawhead has changed what he believes. In the end, Patrick was a disappointment.

I made the mistake of buying this book because the introduction intrigued me. His word play and analogies seemed interesting, but it quickly grew annoying.

He rarely makes any sense, and it seems like he's making one inside joke after another with himself or with people his age. I don't 'get' his obscure cultural references from the 60s. I'm not kidding, read through a few pages and you'll see that it sounds like he was high off his a$$ when he wrote it. His writing style is literary masturbation, like he's getting himself off by coming across as an intellectual making a good point, instead of making a good point with a solid argument. The use of 'fluff' words and unecessary prose will be the first thing you'll notice ruining this book.

I'm not one to put down a book and stop reading it, but this is the first one in years. As a Chicano, I cannot identify with this man. Aside from the front he's putting on by trying to come off as an 'educated man', he makes several references that he should be on the same shelf as great 'white authors'. That he does not want to be "The Hispanic" on the shelf. What's wrong with that? Is he not proud of what he is? I don't hear black authors complaining like this, because they have self acceptance. What does it matter if he's the Hispanic on the shelf? Is it a negative connotation to the word that he has on the back of his mind that bothers him? Is he afraid he'll be judged by whites by label alone? It's almost like he's trying to prove that he 'can do it too' and it's the first proof in a long list of evidence that Richard Rodriguez desperately wants to fit in within white circles and is begging to be accepted. Someone on here commented that it seems like he has an inferiority complex, and I would have to say that hit the nail on the head. The vibe I get from this guy is that his "brownness" is the only thing holding him back from receiving full acceptance, and he's out to prove that he shouldn't be judged by that. It's almost like a self serving agenda he has, instead of showing the virtues and accomplishments of "brown people".

I will not finish reading this book, and I have now crossed his other books off of my "to read" list.

That inconvenient truth or understanding that America is more than what some would like to still believe. We are not black or white (or Hispanic - a nice made up word). We are brown. Black and white both imply voids that either absorb everything (like black) or contrast completely (like white). The truth is in America we are all mixed up. I know that's an ugly truth for many. The reason that it becomes a hang-up here and not so much as in Catholic countries (like Mexico) is that Protestant/Puritan values still live on strong. Be who you want, but don't try to blend lines or anything. Keep to your true pure self! Listen only to "your" type of music. Only eat "your" type of food (none of us is guilty of this one as obese as the country is). Only wear "your" type of clothes. Yes, you can have freedom in America, as long as you fit into your little niche. "You're African-American! You're supposed to listen to Hip-Hop. What are you doing liking Classical music?" Beethoven was the stuff! But anyway the only "race" that in America is tolerated to "cross the lines" in terms of cultural identity is whites (Is it because white pigment blends with other colors without the colors losing their essence?). And this whole "race" thing! Skin has only one color! "Shock"....I'm not speaking blasphemy. It's true. The color is called MELINAN. Actually it's a pigment. The difference in people is the amount you have. Young people today don't have the hang-ups about "race" like the older generations have. It takes a while to get rid of deeply entrenched ideas. This book had my mind spinning. Very insightful and complex. It's dense like others mentioned, but hey life is dense. Americans would like to think of life as uncomplicated with our little categories to put things. But as life (and history) shows us time and time again nothing is really black and white except divinity. And even that isn't as straightforward as some believe. Consider the fact that Jesus Christ, Gautama Buddha, the Prophet Moses, the Prophet Muhammad, Adam and Eve were brown. Think about it!

The human world (Europe, Asia, Africa, America, and etc.) is brown.

Post-Note: According to the Rodriguez, Brown also means complexity not just the color itself.

Richard Rodriguez is a very provocative thinker from a well thought out perspective that should be shared and understood. It works well in contrast to older writings by Robert Ardrey. We are a visual species who categorizes, and will always categorize the people, places, things, and ideas we encounter based upon their literal and figurative appearance. Mr. Rodriguez brings to question some of those things we define, and some of those things we mis-define. After over 100 years of scientific research on exactly what makes a breed of man and a society there is no longer any excuse for questionaires which attempt to undermine inequality by mixing culture and race. As he points out, Hispanic is not a race - but a culure, and should not appear in a list to be checked next to white, black, or American Indian - which again are inaccurate. The entire system of boxing into said categories fails both in accuracy and only reinforces the divisions of modern prejudices.

Rodriguez has written an ambitious book: who else would be willing to take on the idea of "brown" and all it involves, from the many perspectives from which this writer sees? I teach a university course on Biography and Memoir and his is one of my favorite books to include. I love his attention to the role of the public library, schools, how religion divides and unites us. Increasingly we all live in a "brown" world and Rodriguez shows us how books and culture help us explore that world in its origins and awesome potential for good and for ill. His riffs are right-on target: Malcolm X as latter-day Puritan, Frederick Douglass on the same shelf with Benjamin Franklin in terms of writing memoirs that tell us how to live honestly in This America of Ours. The poetry of Rodriguez's language is not at all what we might come to expect from an analytical writer. His work is closer to poetry that looks back to the multiple historical origins of these Americas, asks about the originary moments of various races, cultures, religions coming together, and what has happened since. By writing evocatively, rather than cut-and-dry rants or analyses, Rodriguez does much to explore the structures that pervade and are promised in present-day America. Rodriguez is worth, will pay back in insights every bit of time you put into reading him. Maybe his identity isn't yours, maybe you will want to dismiss him, but if you read through, stay with this book, I promise - he will get under your skin.

This guy is full of it and full of himself. Wants to sound sooooooooooooooooo educated. Comes off sounding like a pretentious overcompensating guy with a real inferiority complex. Obviously has not come to a point of self-acceptance. It is a pity. I got the book in hopes of finding some help with my own Mexican-American son's struggles to fit in to either the Mexican or the "white" sides of his heritage. This book is NOT one I will leave around for him to read. I wonder how he got published.

It would be easy to dismiss this book by Jeff Greenfield, former field worker for Democrat Bobby Kennedy and political analyst on the Clinton News Network (CNN). It would also be wrong, because this book is hilarious and a serious treatment of the issues of the 2000 Election simultaneously.

I must commend Greenfield for being one of the few analysts who - on the written paper - spelled out his thoughts that Bush had the election in the bag from the earliest hours of the Florida debacle. Had Vice President Gore read Greenfield's points, the entire country could have been spared the 36 day ordeal and who knows how many millions in attorney's fees.

Greenfield is a worthy successor to the old Jack Germond/Jules Witcover series which itself was a worthy successor to the Theodore H. White series of books, "The Making of the President." He recounts in vivid detail the back and forth shock of Election Night 2000 - the only night in American history where the networks somehow got the winner of the election wrong not once but twice.

I can see how a Gore supporter might think the book is biased against Gore though I disagree with that assessment. It points out Gore's biggest liability - exaggeration - and makes the valid point that Gore's exaggeration as well as his demonstrated arrogance cost him the first debate and may well have cost him the election. Greenfield also shows what Republicans knew - the nomination of George W. Bush was a foregone conclusion as have all been ALL GOP nominations since 1968 (with the possible exception of 1976 - but that caveat comes from Ford having not been elected by the voters).

Greenfield covers McCain (the maverick who is conservative but not radical) and Bradley, pointing out that Bradley missed a vital exchange that could have altered the Democratic race. But the best part of the book is the conclusion.

Greenfield demonstrates - rightly so, might I add - that regardless of what the US Supreme Court would rule and regardless what was done - Bush had Gore beaten in every possible way. The governor's office as well as the Secretary of State's office (Katherine Harris) were in Republican hands and the Supreme Court had a conservative majority. On top of that, all Congress under GOP control would have had to do was not accept the Gore electors even if Gore had won. Gore was simply beaten in every constitutional way possible despite his slight edge in the popular vote.

Greenfield also points out some of the Republican hypocrisy: after all, it was presumed by many in the Bush camp that Gore might win the election without winning the popular vote. Yet when just the opposite happened, the Bush cry became constitution over what they (on the previous Friday) had called 'the will of the people.' Suffice it to say that there were no angels on either side of the debate.

I hope Greenfield writes a 2004 tome. It would surely be interesting if it's anything like this one. Get it and enjoy.

great fun to be reading this book at the start of the 2004 campaign -- so many of its insights about the personalities, the parties, the processes that shaped the 2000 election seem as pertinent today as they did when first written a few years ago. Greenfield is a peerless writer with extraodinarily dry wit and a priceless ability to find just the right concise anecdote to summarize what others might take long chapters to chronicle. He appers even-handed -- a partisan for only intelligence and common sense, in his coverage of the respective campaigns, election night, and the 37-day aftermath. No one interested in politics will fail to find enlightenment and entertainment in this charming, timeless volume. Although I have become addicted to the 'blogosphere' and rarely look to tv for news and commentary, Jeff Greenfield's appearances on the tube would provide a rare excuse for me to turn on the tv again.

So many political books nowadays cater to one particular idealogy or another. This is a book that can be received by both left-wingers and right-wingers. For a CNN analyst, Greenfield is surprising down-the-middle, focusing on both candidates strengths and weaknesses, and giving us his own perspectives on the fiasco as it happened. The wit he includes in the book is dry but extremely well-done. If I ever have to teack about the 2000 Election in a college classroom, without a doubt this would be the book I'd use.

I've read *At Any Cost* before. This time, I thought, it might be interesting to read a review of the election resolution by someone who wasn't displaying his bias on every page. I respect Jeff Greenfield as a journalist, because he comes the closest of just about any of them out there to staying objective and removing his preferences from his reporting. And besides, most of the other books on this subject have a clear bias.

I must say that that is exactly what I got. I was amazed how objectively he managed to report on the events, especially when it came to the "We want every vote counted," vs. "They're devining the intent of the voters." You could believe that he really did see some merit on both sides; in fact, he seemed frustrated that the politicians he interviewed could not. If the only reporting in this book were on the events of the election, he'd get a four or five star review from me.

Where his bias creeps in is when he explains how the two bad calls of Florida occurred. It is as though he is telling the reader, "Don't be too hard on us. After all, who would have EVER thought such a fluke could have occurred." I do believe that if it were up to Jeff Greenfield, there would be no cause for regret at all. It was fate that led to the press calling Florida twice when it never should have been called at all!

He argues, rather persuasively in fact, that calling Florida before all the polls in Florida were closed didn't change the outcome at all. And he may be right, but I think it would be hard to prove definitively either way, and even if it were true, it doesn't justify calling it when they did at all.

As a conservative, while I wish neither call had been made, I have always thought that that was the bigger faux paus. I don't really believe that the final call after most of the apathetic public had retired for the night truly persuaded them that Bush won. As a Bush supporter, while I hoped it would come out that way, when the closeness of the vote became clear, I didn't know who won. I disregarded the media call when they said it was no longer certain. And initially, before ridiculous things like holding the cards up looking for light to peak through were done, I thought a recount was only reasonable. The call in the wee hours of the morning didn't convince me of the outcome; the mechanical recount did. I think most of the public does enough thinking not to just decide Bush won because the press called it too soon.

But it was clear that the only call Jeff Greenfield worried much about was the last one. The fact that the voting in Florida wasn't over before they called it the first time was no big deal. I don't expect Jeff Greenfield, or anyone who would prefer in his or her heart for Gore to have won to share my emotions about it. I simply think that they should acknowledge that whether it affected the Florida results or not, it SHOULDN'T have been done, and was something the powers that be that called it should lose a little sleep over.

Another reason why I give this book three stars is that it just didn't grip me clear through. I started out engrossed in the book but found that the last fifty pages or so really started to drag. I finished the book, but I'm not really sure why I made myself do so. I guess I felt like his perspective on the final days of how it wound down didn't really offer anything to provoke consideration that hadn't already been discussed before. I think the point at which it started to drag was after he covered what each side was saying in the aftermath of the recounts.

Greenfield writes very well and uses humour to make good points. He provides some sound insights from the point of view of the media on the inside.

About the only place where I thought he went astray was the lengthy and detailed (tortourous?) passage on how the moon and stars lined up and led to the bad calls on Florida. Besides using this explanation as a "devil made us do it" defense; he also points out that all of the available studies indicate that media calls do not influence subsequent voter action. Greenfield is much too intelligent to believe either of these points.

Overall, well worth reading.

D. Michael Quinn is considered the authority when it comes to LDS history and the research behind it. This book is number two in his Hierarchy series. It is great to go behind the scenes of mormonism and see that 'men of god' are still MEN. Also, it makes apparent who exactly was the Prophet of the Restoration: Joseph Smith. Nobody after him was, and nobody after him can compare.
Yet, the men that did come after Joseph did what they could to lead a fast growing church. Things didn't come easy, and Quinn keeps things in perspective. Read this and book one only if you realize certain things and have a good foundation of faith in Jesus Christ, not anything else.

Again Quinn has provided an insightful book on Mormon History. He documents everything he says, often from multiple Mormon sources. Leaders of the Mormon Church have said that history should always be uplifting and leaders should never be criticised. Below are three quotes that illustrate this point.

"My duty as a member of the Council of the Twelve is to protect what is most unique about the LDS church, namely the authority of priesthood, testimony regarding the restoration of the gospel, and the divine mission of the Savior. Everything may be sacrificed in order to maintain the integrity of those essential facts. Thus, if Mormon Enigma reveals information that is detrimental to the reputation of Joseph Smith, then it is necessary to try to limit its influence and that of its authors."
- Apostle Dallin Oaks, footnote 28, Inside the Mind of Joseph Smith: Psychobiography and the Book of Mormon, Introduction p. xliii

"You seminary teachers and some of you institute and BYU men will be teaching the history of the Church this school year. This is an unparalleled opportunity in the lives of your students to increase their faith and testimony of the divinity of this work. Your objective should be that they will see the hand of the Lord in every hour and every moment of the Church from its beginning till now."

"Church history can be so interesting and so inspiring as to be a very powerful tool indeed for building faith. If not properly written or properly taught, it may be a faith destroyer."

"There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not."

"Some things that are true are not very useful."
- Boyd K. Packer, "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect", 1981, BYU Studies, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 259-271

"It is one thing to depreciate a person who exercises corporate power or even government power. It is quite another thing to criticize or depreciate a person for the performance of an office to which he or she has been called of God. It does not matter that the criticism is true."
- Dallin H. Oaks, "Reading Church History," CES Doctrine and Covenants Symposium, Brigham Young University, 16 Aug. 1985, page 25. also see Dallin H. Oaks, "Elder Decries Criticism of LDS Leaders," quoted in The Salt Lake Tribune, Sunday August 18, 1985, p. 2B

Quinn puts things in the proper perspective showing the disagreements and differences between leaders. He shows the parts of Mormon History that are not faith promoting. If the reader wants to really understand this portion of Mormon History, there is not another book that comes close.

I am not a Mormon, but it is obvious that Mr. Quinn's personal agenda distorts the truth.

It's true, there is enough in footnoted references to sustain you in your basement along with all your food storage from the local Stake cannery till dooms day.

Knowing Dr. Quinn's writing style, the footnotes should not come as a surprise but only presents exhaustive validity to what he is bold enough to say. Having worked for the Church in the Family and Church History Department, I can say that people still talk about when Quinn worked there years ago. The difference between us and Quinn is we are in the business of being Spiritual Dermatologists: burning off history's warts, creating a pot marked but clean historical image. Quinn does not need to explain him self to those who find his work incorrect, I feel and believe he is not in this for any type of vanity, even historical. Quinn has not missed the mark, LDS historical scholarly works will show, in time, that he has, in fact, defined it!

Like its predecessor, this book confirms many of the things I had suspected for years growing up in the shadow of the Headquarters and associating with officers at all levels. My father worked for the Church for several years, and late in life became a bishop. I overheard numerous conversations between him, my mother, and his colleagues throughout his life that confirm the pettiness and status-seeking of many individuals within the Hierarchy. Quinn's books flesh out the backdrop of these tales and confirms my own experience working for the Church and for those men who became leaders therein. In the mid '70s I was chagrined after a personal encounter to find ET Benson had a short temper, demonstrating he had never conquered his passions any better than an overindulged child. Quinn verfied for me the leadership is universally composed of men (and women) who are of ordinary character and intelligence, put into authority not because they conquered their passions and are more Christ-like than the rest of us, but know someone they can attain status with, or feel they will influence the world for better. Not all the people who inhabit the Church offices are like this. Those who aren't are usually hirelings.

Quinn also shows how in the name of God, the value of human spirituality has been trampled upon more often than enhanced since the Church's founding. The Grand Seceret for which Quinn and other's have paid the price for is they refused to collude in the game of the Emperor's New Clothes; for these men have just as much difficulty exhibiting the character of Christ as any man swallowed up in business. It just doesn't add up that there should be interest in monitoring "dissident" members or punishing members for having a difference of opinion when there are so many poor who fall through the cracks of the Welfare system, or the spiritually starving looking for substance in the leadership.

The chapters on politics are a bit dry and belabored. And like any other book on history, it reveals the author's slant. But that, along with some inescapable errors is what writing history has always been. I wouldn't believe a tenth of what FARMS has to say for their conflict of interest, being apologists for the Church. The best part of both books is the chronology at the back. Well worth the read, especially if you have experienced discontinuites between speeches, public appearance, doctrines, and your own character assessment and learning.

From Babylon to Timbuktu: A History of the Ancient Black Races Including the Black Hebrews

This book is well written and well worth reading, or better yet worth studying. I read this book armed with my computer, Bible software,a copy of "the Complete Works of the Biblical Historian Flavius Josephus", Mircrosoft Encarta, and Wikipedia, etc. it will help to have each one of them, because it is so important to always check the author's notes and references in the back of the book as you read. I kept a bookmarker for the note section, too. I concluded that the author was very thorough in his research of the facts he presented in his book, in which I can appreciate. I became so engrossed in his work that I am fully committed to reading it again, and this time adding some of the other authors he referred to in the back of his book. If you like to read about history,this would be a real mind opening book to read or study.

Betty Chandler

I have read this book and it was okay, I believe the author needed more research on the nationality of Hebrew people and who they are. Black people are the original Hebrew people only they don't know that they are we have been brain washed to believe that we are just African. The book does explain how many Africans came to the land of African, they were from Israel, however they were invaded by Arabs and many of them fled to North African and this is how some of the population began in African. Many Africans there are not really African, they are Hebrew Israelites. The book was infromative, however the author kept interchanging the word Hebrew and Jew in a time the letter J was not even in excistance. The letter J was discovered in the late 1600's and the author is talking about information way before that time so how is he referrering to Jews. Some parts of the book is informative and some repetitive. Please do further study of this subject matter.

The book was informative, but there are some mistakes. At the begginning of the book, it says the Tigres and the Euphrates were the first civilization. Though this is a mistake, it can be thought to exist because of the times the author lived. The first civilization, was that in Kemet(Egypt), wich meant land of the blacks. The conservative estimate for the Tigres and Euphrates is 2,500 B.C. At the same time the conservative date for Kemet is 3200 B.C. With this, there are those who try, with much evidence to say that the Tigres and Euphrates go to 9000 B.C. With a foot hold up, and with the work of Graham Hancock, and Robert Bauval Kemet now, through the pyramid and the sphinx has been linked to 10,500 B.C. There is more evidence that civilization began in the land of Africa, but because of space, it can't all be said here. This truth of a begginning Aro-Civilization is not just because of racial pride or anything else, but just because of climate. Africa had a climate that would enable it to grow first. Also reader know, much, if not all of the theosophy found in the Hebrew religion, is found predated, in Kemet. This ranges from the creation story, the laws, monotheismm(Ahkenaton), Jacob's dreams, and the Christ myth. Not to mention, Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Jesus all according to the Torah and the Bible went to Egypt, and also the old testament scriptures were compiled in Egypt. For more on this read 16 Crucified Saviors(Kersey Graves), African presence in Early Asia(Ivan Van Sertima), and Africans Who wrote the Bible(Nana Darkwah). In the end, yes Babylon, and the Tigres and Euphrates were Black Arican Civilization, but were later developed because the present Homo Sapien Humans developed in inner Arfica and migrated to lands across the world. The oldest spieces comparable with ours found was a woman labeled Lucy. She was found in Ethiopia dated 150,000 years old.

Where do I begin?? Simply put, this book is written poorly. Trust me, I am not anti african history. It's just that the book has the feel of a high school term paper. The content of the book is presented in an unconvincing fashion. The author goes into first person to third person, makes references to non-existent sources. Very bad. I agree that there is a rich history to be uncovered for those seeking to learn about the black influence on world history. This book could turn many people off from that search. Don't let it happen to you. Read "The Story of the Moors in Spain" by Stanley Lane-Poole, for example. Read "African Origins of Civilization" by Cheikh Anta Diop. There are many other books that can provide adequate references and make for a better read.

Yet another decidedly unscholarly attempt to falsify the record of the past and make history a tool of propaganda, beset with fantasy and illusion. Pure garbage formed ex nihilo, like Black Athena, sprung perfectly formed and armored from a Black Zeus. There is real and honest African history out there folks, and it doesn't have to co-opt, borrow or steal from other civilizations to be validated.

Larry Dean Olsen's book is funny, informative, and full of helpful photos and illustrations. It's written by an experienced outdoorsman who's tested these techniques in the field for most of his life. For anyone interested in survival skills, this is a must-have.

Westerners will get particularly good information from the chapter on wild plant uses, as well as the color-plate appendix for plant identification. I've carried this book in field and found it a great resource on a number of occasions. (Hmmm....I don't THINK that's death camas, but maybe I should check!).

Ancient tool enthusiasts will find helpful hints for constructing useful field equipment (stone axes, knife blades, cordage, fire drills) as well as tips on constructing emergency shelters.

There's even a section on harvesting wild animals.

A great resource. If you travel a lot, I recommend you keep a copy in car for emergency situations or just some good old-fashioned exploring!

If you want to read a story about how the author thinks he can survive in the wild, this is the book for you. I bought this book many years ago and found it useless at the time. I recently got it out again and thought I would give it another try. Same thing- almost useless. The author talks about a lot of things that would probably be very good to know/learn but the trouble is that most of the things are not explained enough for a regular person to be able to figure out how to actually do them. Your money would be better spent on a real survival book and not this one.

I don't understand why this book gets such high praise. It is not a how to book but more of a show and tell. If you want to learn survival skills look elsewhere. I bought this book thinking I was going to learn something. It just shows you what a shelter is and what this is or that.

This book is still used and recommended by the Boulder Outdoor Survival School, possibly the most reputable school in the business. Larry Dean Olsen, the author, is a guru in the field, and quite an amusing writer as well. This book is a classic, having come out originally in 1967 (my copy is the 30th anniversary edition from 1997). This is not a book for weekend backpackers, it is a text for those who want to explore and preserve true primitive survival skills - living off the land, friction fires, etc. If that is what you are looking for, this book is a great choice.

On reading some of the foregoing reviews, I can't believe we're talking about the same book. I received my first copy of Outdoor Survival Skills in the late 60's and it was the first of the best. There have been many excellent survival/primitive living skill authors since - Tom Brown Jr., John McPherson, Richard Jamison, Kochanski, Mears, Graves, Janowski, more recently, Cody Lundin, and the list goes on. By the way, the reason it was my first copy, was because I lent it to someone, who I guess, appreciated it as much as I did, so I never saw it again.
Even though the first edition came out sometime in the late 60's
the information is just as thorough, valuable, and accurate as it was then. Anybody that does not find this book so, should stick to outdoor writer's like Cliff Jacobson, who it appears, believes the only reason to carry a knife in the outdoors is to spread peanut butter.
Well done, Mr. Olsen, I thank you.