MR

It's strange to find that a bio of a chap so flamboyant as Mr. Mike would be so hard to get through. The context is pretty narrow, too. Better to have put the man in the framework of his times, contrasting him with his contemporaries and past wits he admired. But all that aside, to get so few laughs from a book about such an inspired satirist is disconcerting. Couldn't we just have all his scripts and poems by themselves, instead?

Problem is, this book isn't funny in its content, or even witty in its execution, let alone its overall appreciation of a master. Give us Michael by Michael, an anthology of the man's own work!

In my younger days, I found O'Donoghue fascinating. After reading this book, I feel that I now have a good understanding of the man and of what he was doing.

Perrin covers each phase of O'Donoghue's career in depth and detail, and reveals O'Donoghue to be a performance artist working in comedy moreso than a comedian (as is, for example, Al Franken who O'Donoghue reportedly despised). This book is not a pleasant read, as O'Donoghue was devoted to offending and disturbing people. If you want to understand him, or his "art", this is the place to go.

I am an admirer of Kincaid's work, especially "The Autobiography of My Mother" and "My Brother." However, my high hopes for this book were dashed as I turned page after page. In "Mr. Potter," Kincaid unintentionally parodies the very prose style that made the above works so powerful.

In close to 200 pages, what is incantatory in her earlier work is tediously and self-importantly repetitous in this one. The details of her father's life -- his ancestry, his abandonment of mother and daughters, his later livelihood -- are several dozen pages worth of narrative that is ridiculously stretched out in endlessly repeated phrases; and when those phrases are exhausted, we get paraphrases of those phrases.

Instead of creating a solid portrait of her father the way she did with her mother and brother, we get a novel in which parodic repetition is the main character, in which the author's voice defeats forward-moving narrative. One gets the feeling that the style has become just filler, that Kincaid knew few enough facts of her father's life in order to fill entire book.

Kincaid's writing style is entirely unique and distinctive. This book is not just trying to tell a story, it is assigning an identity to people who otherwise would not have one. The point of this book is to explore and interpret the influence that the past has on the present, both globally and individually. Every literary device Kincaid incorporates into this book is used for a reason, from her repetition of certain phrases to her two page long sentences--it all adds and supports the depth and breadth of the subject she is writing about. With this book Kincaid not only challenges the way we view our lives, history and environment, but the way we view the lives,history and environments of people who are wholly unlike us. "Mr. Potter" is a striking piece of literature.

I enjoyed this novel. It's very realistic, and flows smoothly. Great summer read. Other summer reads recommended are: In-Law Drama and Sunset in St. Tropez. Happy reading!

This book review is about the book wind in the willows. The author of this book is Kenneth Graham. This book is about a water mouse and a mole who made friends on the side of a river bed. In the storie they have many daring adventures together. I thought this book was too long and very boring. It's something I wouldn't recommend because the stories have too much verbalization in it.

a classic story with beautiful, soft illustrations. these are the stories children will remember as they grow up. i started reading these stories to my son as soon as i brought him home from the hospital. although i wont know for sure for many years, he seemed to listen and enjoy the stories...although others may deem them full of "verbalization" (huh?), i call them beautiful words strung together for the enjoyment of children of all ages.

Inga Moore has to be among the best illustrators I've seen for "Wind in the Willows." Lots of lovely pictures that capture the spirit of the book. I rank her artwork right up with Eric Kincaid's...

I picked up this book after finishing Francis Hartigan's fine biography of Bill Wilson. I simply could not finish this book. "Raphael," the pseudonym of the author used in accordance with AA's 12th tradition, does a slip-shod job of reserching this subject, and mainly spends his time writing textual rifs based on his own interior monolog.

This kind of writing seemed OK in the 70s, but now that Raphael and I have sobered up, it doesn't seem very interesting.

I was given this book as an early gift for my 5-year sobriety birthday. In April 1998, I took what I hope was my last drink. In April 2003, "God willin' and the creek don't rise," I will celebrate that 5-year milestone. I've read all the AA-approved treatments of our co-founders and their lives, and much of the non-conference-approved canon on the life of William G. Wilson. This book quickly became my favorite because of its honesty. Rather than painting Bill W. as God's special instrument, divinely appointed to save us drunks and led by God as if by puppet strings, this book paints an appropriately complex picture of a real human being -- a drunk like me. Raphael's take on Bill W. is based on tremendous research and a great deal of thought, as well as the wisdom of long-term, "good" sobriety. The writing is lucid and readable, though I did have to consult the dictionary twice. (I don't mind that, though -- being stretched a little. Good books should do that, don't you think?) For anyone interested in AA's legendary cofounder, I give this book a 5-star recommendation. It doesn't get better than this for thoughtful members of the recovery community.

Only 3500 copies initially published. Sure to be a cult book like Igor Sikorsky's "Aa's Godparents : Three Early Influences on Alcoholics Anonymous and Its Foundation : Carl Jung, Emmet Fox, Jack Alexander" and copies will be hoarded and in great demand. The cover of the book is outstanding, from a painting, NIGHTHAWKS by Edward Hopper 1942, its compelling.

The book, like its cover, also is compelling. The author has an easy to read but euridite and somewhat pedantic style that once I became used to it was very comfortable. Its been a long time since I encountered the terms termagant or fin de siecle.

The facts and narratives are always interesting and I find myself agreeing and disagreeing with a number of statements and conclusions but I have to think them out. Items covered extremely well are existentialism, deflation in depth, desire for salvation, The Varities of Relegious Exerience, and the list goes on. That it has compelled me to think out some preconceived views is what I find to be the best characteristic of this book. Read the book and "Let your response happen."

Factually it is nicely done. I admire and respect the author's endeavors.

That said, there are several holes that I wish had been explored:

The Hebrew and Greek concept of "Metanoia" is mentioned in a shallow passage that dismisses it as a purely "Protestant" concept. Father John Doe's, Ralph Pfau, writings would be a place to start. Repentance is more than confessing and saying you are sorry... (there are more than 4 steps!)

Where o where is any reference to Emmet Fox? The Sermon on the Mount has been called the "Little Big Book" and there are several histories where it is noted that it was given out at meetings before there was a big book. The author did a wonderful job of tying linage back to the (Shoemaker, Buchman) Oxford Group, I found myself wishing he had done the same with Emmet Fox. (The Sermon on the Mount is still AA approved literature.)

Several Long/Old/Seasoned Timers have mentioned that Bill, while writing the 164 pages at the mystical white kitchen table, constantly used and referenced the Bible, New Testament, and the book of James. I would have liked to have seen this aspect covered with the same ability the author showed with Nell Wing's viewpoint.

Bill W has a pamphlet which is AA approved and published where he addresses an AMA medical conference. In it he simultaneously describes the program along three tracks - 1) Psychological, 2) Philosophical, and 3) Spiritual. I found myself hoping the author was going to cover this material. Alas, no such chapter.

But it was a great book, I wanted more of the Author's reasoned, diligently researched and insightful conversational text. Even though I did not completely or necessarially agree, I really enjoyed the process of the reading experience. I truly enjoyed the book. It made me think, made me agree and disagree, informed me, and affected me. I really would like to have seen it be twice as long.

In the stepping stones section where the author discribes Lois W. as saying that Bill W. did truly achieve humility was wonderfully led up to, framed, and presented. I felt, se finis, as if Bill was saying to me, out of this book, "True ambition is to walk humbly and to live usefully under God's Grace."

Well Done! Bravo

The text of the book is a transcribed speech which Judith Martin gave to students at a certain Ivy League institution. It covers a short history of official American manners, such as when President Thomas Jefferson tried to apply his democratic ideals by calling all foreign envoys "Mr. Stuart" and the like, as opposed to using titles in official protocol. This idea did not last.

However, there really isn't that much substance in this book that has not been covered in one of Ms. Martin's many other books. Her main idea is that, as a democratic society, social manners should not depend on money or rank, but egalitarianism, where the fair way to decide precedence is by age -- simply for the reason that everyone eventually gets their chance to take precedence, should they live long enough. Still, reading this prompted me to write Ms. Martin to ask her to write a more complete book on the history of American etiquette. I still await that book.

I would recommend buying a different book by Ms. Martin; the wait I had to get this book wasn't worth it.

Why does this nation suffer from an epidemic of rudeness? How can we keep our professional lives from destroying our private lives? How can good manners be squared with the ideals of American life? The Kennedy School of Government at Harvard invited Judith Martin (i.e., Miss Manners) to come and deliver its John M. Olin Distinguished Lecture on these questions, and she responded with this marvelous little book, filled with the sort of good sense (and good humor) that always makes her work eminently readable. The only other scholar ever invited to talk at Harvard on the question of deportment, by the way, was Cotton Mather -- eminent company indeed!

If you think Miss Manners is only interested in which fork to use with the fish course, you obviously haven't been keeping up. She's actually a very skilled practical anthropologist and sociologist, with a lively interest in what sets our theoretically classless American culture apart from the rest of the world. And she has maintained for years that "proper" -- which is to say "common sense" -- etiquette is the very linchpin of a democratic, egalitarian society. A nicely written and very thought-provoking book.

"My mission, rather, is to call attention to the need for a philosophically acceptable and aesthetically pleasing standard of American etiquette."

Judith Sylvia Perlman was born in 1938 and spent part of her childhood in foreign capitals due to her father's work as a United Nations economist. She then worked at The Washington Post for 25 years, covering social events at the White House. Later she became a theater and drama critic. In 1978, she created the Miss Manners column.

This tiny book is a compilation of ideas from a lecture given at Harvard University. Judith Martin approached her field work in a different way from most social scientists. Instead of studying a segment of society for a limited period of time, she simply invited everyone in the country to write to her so she could analyze the problems and provide helpful solutions to perplexing questions about etiquette.

"The state of American etiquette is, however, now worse than ever. Miss Manners is forced to act. I shall attempt to show what went wrong, and to propose a modest solution."

Judith Martin then continues with humor, which I happily laughed along with (out loud) right through this book. I had no idea she was such a comedian.

She explains how America is a place where you do your own thing and guides us into the area of manners vs. morals. She can't believe how anyone would not be able to figure out which fork to use if she could go from using quill pen to using a personal computer in three days.

This book will make you think about how you speak to people when going to a party. I know for a fact, there are many people who don't like being asked: "What do you do?" As if that is more important than "who you are." Perhaps we should go up to people and say: "What is your dream? Who do you want to become?" I myself am more my hobbies than what I do to make money.

I grew up in a country where children were seen and not heard, where everyone seemed to mind their manners, but in America, I often feel very confused about what people expect, because often when I'm very polite, they become offended by my sense of trying to be nice. As if it is not real. Manners online is another story altogether. At forums, it often seems to be survival of the fittest, which is why I went back to my silent life of reviewing.

This tiny book has a huge helping of humor! Once you read this book, you will more than likely want to read Judith's "Guide to Rearing Perfect Children," "Guide to Excruciatingly Correct Behavior" and "The Name on the White House Floor."

Such unpleasantness! And to what end?

The same old, "Yea, the deepest ring of Hell is Suburbia" nihilism; (the pet musing of all college freshmen away from home for the first time).

And that over-the-top, gross-out violence -- written in the pat ironic tone, of the guy who's SEEN IT ALL, and you have NO IDEA of the depths of human depravity...

Well I'm a little maxed out on this theme, and the nastiness at the end seems pointless, grotesque, and redundant.

Still, it had some nice bits, and I like the start of the '100 brothers', so I'll try that; but overall I'd say: this particular 90's trend/theme must be almost used up, right?

Suburban life is barbaric. I think John Updike and a bunch of other guys (and a few women) told us that a long time ago. Mr. Antrim's twist is to juxtapose brutish, post-apocalyptic behavior with the repressed mannerisms of the self-satisfied bourgeoise. The protagonist has a fascination with medieval torture devices and never *dreams* that when his advice is sought on the matter that it will be put to practical use. He runs into one of his former star students in the middle of a public park ... that has been landmined by neighbors that have literally declared war on each other.

The most interesting part of the book was the regression therapy theme. Mr. Robinson's wife regresses quite comfortably down the phylogenetic ladder to her aboriginal coelocanth-essence. Mr. Robinson rather messily reverts to bison-essence, but his co-dependence on his wife is manifested by his bison's near-drowning in her coelocanth ocean. This is all wonderfully bizarre and animistic. By contrast the sort of sans-superego Freudian society that is portrayed in the rest of the book is a joke that gets kind of old.

Donald Antrim is a wonderful original writer who takes the novel to a new and dark place unlike any book you will ever read. Black humor mixed with painful insights on us all it explores the paradoxical world of insanity and real suburban life in a very funny way.

A lot of the advice written in here is very good but a lot of it also isn't. Some of it is so obvious but anyhow, I felt that the author pushed the point that people should take it upon themselves to find Mr. Right. When we should really trust God to do it for us, I've read dozens of dating/courting books and the one that I like best is "When God Writes Your Love Story by Eric and Leslie Ludy." Its more realistic.

I really enjoyed this book until I reached pages 125 - 152 where the author(s) begin to tell us (women) "Where and How to Look for Mr. Right". Anyone who knows the Bible knows that women are "good things to be FOUND". We have no business looking for men, researching the web (Eharmony.com - the author(s) really pushed this website, it makes one wonder...?), having friends/family "set us up" etc. This is not biblical. Yes, God desires that we marry. God presents the woman to her man just has he presented Eve to Adam, Eve didn't run around looking for Adam. Eve was made for and presented to Adam.

Disturbingly enough, there's also a chapter that not only encourages, but also shows women how to FLIRT! In this chapter, you will find your "flirting style" and find that "flirting is fun!" I can't find any reference to "biblical flirting" in the Bible, therefore you won't find me doing it.

Other than the chapters I spoke of, I liked the book. It was thought provoking and covered issues other books on courting and relationships do not.

I gave the book 3 stars because anyone lacking wisdom and who may not be rooted and grounded in the Word of God may do as the book suggests in those 2 chapters and be in for a rude awakening.

I throughly enjoyed book. I found it to be fresh. I have read almost every relationship book out there and found this to be a keeper. I am 54 and don't feel I need to "save" myself for marriage. I have passed over the "preaching" lightly with humor. Buy this book you'll definely learn something from it.

This book is important for the historian who wishes to get a glimpse into the workings of the mind of an important figure in American Revolutionary history, but it doesn't stand on its own. It is written almost entirely as a response to Edmund Burke's "Reflections on the Revolution in France", so I would not recommend reading this one until and unless one has read that one. Otherwise, it is impossible to judge the fairness of the rebuttals of Burke's points, as one only sees them through Paine's perspective, and Paine is far from a fair and impartial debater; he misses no opportunity to belittle his opponent's arguments, and even his opponent himself. I would not be at all surprised to discover that he gives an inaccurate picture of what Burke had to say, particularly given that history speaks rather better of Burke's misgivings than of Paine's panegyrics. Both books were written before the Reign of Terror that resulted from the revolution in 1793; the second part of this book came out in early 1792. Also, history shows us just how silly some of Paine's claims for a Republican, representative government are: 200+ years of representative government in the US have hardly banished wars, or the high taxes associated with them, even though the world as a whole is far more democratic than it was at his time. He makes some good points, and certainly it is hard to stand up against him in favor of hereditary monarchy, but it is apparent that he failed to see that not ALL "democratic" movements were necessarily benificent, even if it would be hard to have much sympathy for the autocratic regime that they overthrow.

This book, above all others, reveals the breakdown of classical (libertarian) liberalism into the statist liberalism of today. Although the first part of the work, being a refutation of Edmund Burke's silly nonsense, is stellar, and is well worth reading. Regardless, the second part, the chapter on "Ways and Means" in particular, is composed of the most despicable, anti-liberty doctrines that one can find. What Paine basically proposed was a late 18th century form of the welfare state, replete with progressive taxation, subsidies for child birth, and other fine statist amenities. Thus, as all of these things are, in his words, to be claimed as rights, the title of this book comes to mean nothing whatsoever. It is indeed sad that Thomas Paine has gained such an enduring legacy as a friend to liberty. In truth, he is actually one of its worst enemies, as he combines a just zeal for resistance to oppression, revolution, and reason, he sabotages his entire political philosophy.

Thomas Paine's "Rights of Man" is truly a classic defense of self government and reprsentative republicanism. Paine copmletely demolishes Edmund Burke's defense of aristocracy and monarchy as outmoded and absurd institiutions. Paine shows the immorality of monarchy and the plunder that it commits on it's own people through high taxes,unjust property laws,and priveleges for the nobility. Paine shows the virtues a representative system has over the monarchial form. He denounces aristocracy and monarchy as "frauds" and based upon tyranny. The first review by Will Murphy critsizing Paine as a sort of statist is way off the mark. Paine did recommend many ideals of the welfare state. It must be remembered he was speaking to an age where a large wealthy aristocracy ruled alongside the monarch, living in luxury off the high taxes drained from the middle, lower and working classes. Paine was one of the formost defenders of freethought in religion,speech, and ideas.To imply Paine was a sort of 18th century fascist is utterly absurd and ahistorical. Paine was not an enemy of property, just an enemy of aristocracy,who in his day did not obtain property by hard work. Usually property rights in monarchial nations were written to favor the wealthy and powerful, and grant them priveleges at the expense of the populace. Paine completely destroys the ideal that a chosen few were meant or ordained by God to rule. If you love freedom, you can't go wrong with the "Rights of Man".

Amazon recommended this book for me, but I don't know what I did to anger them. Some of this story is told from the perspective of a 90 plus year old, Mr. Mee, who speaks with complete ignorance about the world wide web, and a woman a jogger he meets on the street who he is afraid is injuring herself because her breasts move so violently as she runs. Maybe the character is having a good time, but I can't imagine any reader could be. Buy this book only if you are incapable of getting annoyed.

Mr. Mee is very much a novel of ideas, and much of the 'action' of the novel comes in the form of Crumey's playful tweaking of intellectual and literary history and his insistent investigation into philosophical questions of reality, fantasy, and imagination. Through a prolonged examination of the legacies of Rousseau, Proust, and'to a lesser extent'Flaubert, Crumey creates a novel in which fact is inextricably conjoined with fiction, and the line between reality and fantasy becomes very problematic indeed.

The novel is distinguished by a complex intertextuality in which three separate narratives weave in and out of each other, connecting, confirming, contradicting. The first is the epistolary record of Mr. Mee, an elderly antiquarian in search of the elusive and possibly apocryphal Rosier's Encyclopedia. The second (and finest) of the three narratives chronicles the adventures of Ferrand and Minard, two bumbling characters who are forced to flee Paris after a commission to copy the Encyclopedia involves them in murder and conspiracy. The third concerns a literature professor's preoccupations with issues of memory and imagination as he contemplates seducing one of his students.

Although there are some distracting philosophical asides and some forced humor, Crumey manages to create a playfully inventive fiction that examines the intellectual legacy of the Enlightenment in light of information theory and quantum mechanics. If that sounds interesting to you, by all means proceed. If not, you'll be better off looking elsewhere.

I just finished this book, and was curious how it was reviewed by others. I don't think I've ever seen a book with so wild a divergence of opinion, (1 star, 3 stars and 5 stars).

I thought the book was clever and fun. Mr. Crumey had me laughing out loud many times at the inventive activity of the fairly well developed characters. I look forward to checking out his other offerings

Don't believe reviewers who rachet this book down on grounds of its being "revisionist history." Sometimes the truth hurts, especially when one of the Founding Fathers is shown to have, at the least, feet of clay.
If you are willing to accept heroes with feet of clay, or even see them toppled from pedestals, don't flinch from this book.
More than any other early president except Washington, Thomas Jefferson had a large moral bankroll to spend. And yet, he consistently and repeatedly kept his wad of cash in his pocket on the slavery issue.
Author Robert Kennedy documents several points in early American history -- namely, in the first few years of independence (more at the Virginia level than nationally), in dealing with the settlement of the trans-Appalachian west, with the aquisition and settlement of the Old Southwest, and finally with the Lousiana Purchase -- where Jefferson could have at least checked the spread of slavery. But he did not. In fact, many of his actions at these points in time actually promoted the growth of slavery. Kennedy details his connection to freebooting expeditions against Spanish Florida and his connection to unsavory characters such as Gen. James Wilkenson, along with his aching desire to be liked and accepted by fellow members of his planter class, as background to this.
Jefferson is not being scored for not being an abolitionist. Rather, the idealistic author of the Declaration of Independence is being faulted for not even lifting a moral finger, let alone a whole hand.
Kennedy also includes discussions on matters such as Southern cotton and tobacco monocrop soil depletion as part of the price of Mr. Jefferson's lost cause.
Though some would fault this as revisionist history, they can't attack Kennedy's credentials, as he is both former director of the National Park Service and director emeritus of the Smithsonian's National Museum of American History.
That said, this book is not perfect. I had three major editorial dislikes.
One is explanatory endnotes. Endnotes are fine for citations, but I feel explanatory material should either be in footnotes or worked into the body of the text.
The second is the relative lack of maps, primarily for the Gulf Coast, to illustrate the provenance of some of the freebooting.
The third is a desire for more charts and other illustrative material for information such as soil depletion, if applicable.
That said, this is a must read.

This book had strong content and very weird organization.

On the plus side: Kennedy puts together a commanding set of facts to show that while Jefferson's words rang strong and true, the man himself was hamstrung by his allegiance to his class and could not affect any change regarding slavery in America.

One reviewer called Kennedy's work a Marxist critique of southern history. I would argue precisely the opposite. The "lost cause" of the title was the idea that yeoman farmers, tending their own farms for their own benefit would lead to a strong, engaged and committed citizenry. This was originally a Roman idea shared by men such as Adam Smith, James Oglethorpe, George Washington and Alexander Hamilton. This practice was in place in the Northern colonies and later the Northwest Territory, and lead to economic development and economic independence from Great Britain, industrialization, wealthy citizens and a diversified economy.

In the South, the plantation system meant large farms run by absentee landlords who exploited and ruined the soil, enslaved and robbed people of self-initiative (those people being the slaves), stifled diversification (all hail King Cotton), discouraged industrialization, and prolonged dependence and subservience to textile manufacturers in Liverpool and Manchester. Since the people actually working the land did not have a stake in it, or in the care of the tools they used, the factors of economic production - capital, land, tools and labor -all were "run into the ground."

The lasting effect of the plantation system - low wages, demoralized citizens lacking entrepreneurial spirit, ruined tools, ruined fields, death and suffering - strongly parallel the effects of 60+ years of Communism in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, and before that the effects of British absentee ownership of Ireland. Indeed only in the past couple decades, a full century after the fall of the plantation system, is the South now reviving with manufacturing, entrepreneurship and economic diversification. Post Communist Eastern Europe has strong resemblances to the Reconstruction South.

Therefore, if anything, Kennedy's book affirms the social, moral and economic benefits of the Capitalist market system of small time farmers and business owners over the ruin that stems from collectivization of any sort - Communist or Plantation.

The rest of the book is a wonderful excursion through the history of the deep South. This is what I enjoyed about the book.

On the negative side: the book needs a new title, the current one is misleading. The book is not really about the Louisiana purchase as much as it is about how Jefferson, Madison, Monroe and their cohorts lead the nation down a path to a condition that would only be rectified with much bloodshed in the 1860s.

The book needs better organization (this is the worst organized book I've ever encountered).

It needs a new appendix. The book mentions Aaron Burr and his doings, trial, conspiracy, sentencing, exile, etc. without provide some sort of appendix to tell us about Aaron Burr. All I know about the man is that he dueled with Alexander Hamilton and won. I think the author presume much to much on the readers part when it comes to Burr. That was troublesome.

The matter of how and why the Louisiana Purchase came to be is found in ONE obscure paragraph buried deep in the book: Napoleon's real interest was the income from sugar plantations in Haiti - Louisiana served only as a source of material to operate the plantations in Haiti -- and when Haitian rebels took over (sound familiar?) France was forced out of the sugar business and found a better use for Louisiana: cash it in - cheap.

Finally, the book comes together only on the final page when Kennedy sums up Jefferson's accomplishments and failings, especially how his ideas finally came to fruition under Lincoln and in the various Homestead Acts.

All in all, despite its numerous faults, I highly recommend this book. It is a very interesting and engrossing history of the US acquisition of Florida, Alabama, Mississippi and Texas; the personalities of Jefferson, Washington, Madison, Monroe; Native American-African American-European and American relations and quite a bit more. Lots of food for thought here. Great book.

Roger Kennedy has written a great book. Thomas Jefferson's Cause was truly lost because the planters and slavers whom he represented continued to use up people and land until they were stopped at the Civil War. Thus the internal contradiction of the plantation system worked itself out. Hopefully, others will pick up where Kennedy left off, and continue to trace the strain (or stain) of the users up to the present day. Just as slave owners used slaves in labor and other ways, they also used up the land in a grossly wasteful way. We see their ilk with us today in the oil industry, the lumber industry, and in the political helpers of the inheritors of the tradition of the planters and slavers. These are the ones who use things and people up, and then move on to greener pastures where they can continue their destructive ways.