The title "Economic Sentiments" is intriguing. How can "sentiments" be "economic"? Is "sympathy" economic? Or "greed"? Or maybe the "desire to better one's conditions," which is neither greed nor thrift nor entrepreneurial adventurism, but maybe a little of each. Unfortunately Ms. Rothschild does not deliver on the promise of the book's title. She is very learned and obviously knows her stuff, but most readers will likely be disappointed by the slighting of Smith in a book that, judging by its title, presumably would treat Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments. But close textual analysis is not Rothschild's bag (as Austin Powers might put it). There is, however, an extended discussion as to why Smith's "invisible hand" is just a big joke, but that is not a verifiable argument, nor can Rothschild draw on her considerable learning to make it. After all, how can you prove that a joke is a joke? And nothing prevents a joke from being both ironic and true. Emma invokes the reductio ad inegalitarium to argue that Smith could never have believed in an "invisible hand." It is argument by proximity. I know Smith, Smith is a friend of mine, and the Smith I know could never have assumed the inegalitarian vantage of the omniscient observer. Ergo the "invisible hand" is a joke. Is that convincing? She then launches on an extended comparision of Smith and Hayek that attempts to assimilate Smith to Hayek--as if Smith were not difficult enough to understand on his own. For a scholar who clearly thinks that historical context is the greater part of intellectual history, Rothschild's eagerness to make Smith relevant is at odds with her method. There is an interesting book here that Rothschild did not write, a book about Smith's portrait of this new man, economic man, the man who Smith in fact depicts in the Theory of Moral Sentiments. Unfortunately Rothschild has written a book that is half learned exposition, half contemporary polemic, and a whole lot less than the sum of its parts.

First, a romantic note - Rothschild dedicates this book to her husband Amartya Sen, and Sen dedicated his last book ('Development as Freedom') to her. So these books will lie side by side on my shelf. Both are well worth reading.

There is more than just a familial connection. Sen clearly used his wife's research on Smith and Condorcet in the writing of 'Development as Freedom' since the Adam Smith that appears in his book is not the cold and callous economist of myth. One suspects that Rothschild's perception of Smith and Condorcet had been coloured by Sen as she presents them as more than just economists as we understand the term, but concerned with a far wider range of phenomena in politics and sociology. In fact they were exactly as much an 'economist' as Sen himself is. As any reader of Sen knows, he covers an extremely broad range of factors in his work, not just GDP and income.

Rothschild argues that Smith's example of the 'invisible hand' that regulates free markets would have as easily been meant as a malign as a benign regulator. Traders who influence markets by bribery or trickery are as much an 'invisible hand' as an imagined self-regulating mechanism. In fact, the beneficient invisible hand was very much a product of later economists. Smith was not as negative on government regulation as he was made out to be by later writers, though strongly against price-fixing by government fiat, guilds which prevented fair competition, and over-zealous regulation of trade and commerce by insiders, profiteers and parasites.

Condorcet comes across as a very attractive human being, passionate and commited to his beliefs. Accused of Utopianism, he struggled with his conviction that he had no right to dictate opinion to others. Yet he believed that his liberal philosophy was best.He was concerned with the 'ordinary man in the street', and rejected any idea that he/ she should be indoctrinated with the 'right' ideas by a state-supported educational system. He wrote for the rights of women, believing that all humanity were entitled to equal rights.

I have to say the book is dense and quite difficult at times. However, it is the ideas that are difficult, not the presentation. It will probably repay a second reading.But I feel after reading this that I have had an excellent introduction to two first-class and important (in a world-historical sense) intellects.

To their enemies the Marquis de Condorcet was the epitome of the worst elements of the French Enlightenment, fatuously optimistic, subtly intolerant and dangerous utopian with his emphasis on the "perfectability" of man, while the notoriously absent-minded Adam Smith was the architect of a notoriously callous and philistine economic theory. Aside from that, the enthusiastic and idealistic Condorcet does not appear to have much in common with the quiet and discreet Smith. Emma Rothschild is the husband of the nobel prize winning economist A. Sen, whose most famous work shows the devastating effect dogmatically applied free market rules can have on worsening famines. Yet this book is a defense of the two from the critics of the Enlightenment.

To a surprising extent she succeeds. Conservatives will be unpleasantly surprised to read that in the decade after his death, mentioning your support of Smith did not prevent Scottish democrats from being transported to Australia by reactionary Scottish judges. For many years Tories did not view Smith as the great economist or philosopher. Instead Smith was the man whose account of his friend, the atheist philosopher David Hume on his deathbed, enraged the pious for showing Hume's complete calm, class and lack of fear of eternal damnation. Rothschild notes how the great economist Carl Menger noted how prominent socialists quoted Smith against their enemies. (Oddly enough she does not quote the passage in CAPITAL where Marx cites an enraged prelate angry at Smith for classifying priests as "unproductive labor.) Smith was an opponent of militarism, a supporter of high wages, and a supporter of French philosophy (and not unsympathetic to the French Revolution,either). Reading of his relations with Turgot and Condorcet, it will be much harder to defend the view of a sharp distinction between a good sensible Protestant Enlightenment, and a bad, Nasty, atheist one on the continent.

In discussing Turgot and Condorcet's support for the free trade in grain, which Smith also supported, Rothschild helps remind us that laissez faire did not simply mean watching while people starved. Confronted with the threat of famine in Limousin in 1770, Turgot preserved the freedom of the corn trade. But he also provided workshops for the poor, increased grain imports from other regions, reduced taxes for the poor, and protected poor tenants from eviction. Condorcet and Smith were both sympathetic to these policies. Rothschild also devotes a whole chapter to Smith's metaphor of the "invisible hand." She points out how rarely it was used in Smith's work, and how on the centennial of the publication of the Wealth of Nation almost no-one mentioned it, even at a special celebration organized by William Gladstone. She then goes into how the concept is used in Smith's works. The concept is complex, and in my view not entirely convincing. But she is successful in pointing out how Smith did not follow Hayek in viewing pre-existing structures as the product of an infallible "organic" wisdom. In contrast to the cant of a Calhoun or a Kendall, Smith realized that the most tyrannical acts of government are those that are local and unofficial.

One should point out the defense of Condorcet as well. In an age where Francois Furet, Keith Michael Baker, Mona Ozouf and others have castigated the French Revolutionary tradition as inherently totalitarian, it is good to be reminded that Condorcet is firmly in the liberal tradition. Like Smith, Condorcet was a great supporter of public education, in contrast to the conservative critics of both. Rothschild discusses his views as an economist, and as a theorist of proportional representation. Surprisingly she does not discuss what were Condorcet's most admirable views, his support for female emancipation and suffrage. But she is excellent in pointing out how Condorcet opposed the crassness of the utilitarians. She notes how Condorcet had a view of the limits of truth and scientific inquiry that would have been approved by Karl Popper himself. She notes that he did not believe that voting could or should create a General Will, in the Rousseauean Sense. He did not believe in using education as a form of propoaganda in civic studies, while his opinions were closer to the reservations of a Herder, a Holderin or a Kant than previously believed.

The book is not perfect. Although studiously documented, most of the quotes are from Smith and Condorcet themselves. More historical context could have been provided. There should have been more about actual historical studies of famines, and more on the political and social context of modern Scotland would have been very informative. And her defense of Condorcet would have been stronger if Rothschild had confronted the well-deserved reputation of Condorcet's colleagues in the Gironde for hypocrisy and demagoguery. But this is an important work, and it helps link one of the most familiar of "english" minds into a full international context. That in itself is praise enough.

It's been years since I've read something by Kerouac, but I was excited when I first learned of this new book, a previously unpublished novella written in 1944; I did not expect it to be a work of high literature, but it was what I had hoped for: a represenation of Kerouac's literary early development. Over all, the writing is somewhat awkward, the plot and premise vague and esotiric, yet at the same time it exudes some of the freshness and intensity that would make his later works--On the Road, in particular--so popular. Naturally it is a must read for any Kerouac junkie, but those not so familiar with his writing will find it interesting as well.

But more for the possibility of what else may turn up. I would really love to see "The Sea is My Brother" appear out of nowhere, but sadly that is unlikely to happen. But its just really great to see NEW publications by Jack so long after he left this world. That something so marginal as work like this should be worthy of publication, just because it is Jack, and he was special, and still loved, is a testiment to him as a man. It certainly has to beat all the later whinney self absorbed stuff he wrote during his disintegrating part of his life i.e. Big Sur and Vanity of Duluoz, as we still have the young hopeful voice. Besides, whoever said that this was meant to be a novel in the traditional sense, it is more an effort to captutre essense of life, which doesnt have plots or always make sense. Thats the secret to Kerouac, trying to say something about life. If you dont enjoy it, get it, fine. Just because the stuff in On the Road was about sex n drugs n bebop, doesnt mean that this is any less a truthful mirror than that monumental book.

I would consider myself a Kerouac junkie, but I dont think that matters to anyone. I personally dont find the need to break down Kerouac in such a way that it all turns into semantics and academia. To me, Kerouac wrote beautifully, and in such a way that to break it down as such, devalues any of the intent or meaning given to the book. I also dont agree that his later works were 'whiney'. That is part of the beauty of Jack Kerouacs works. They are the timeline of his life and adventures. I'm pleased that he was honest and wrote what he felt, not what he may have thought a reader would want to read. I could care less if this was written when he was 22 or 42. Most of his works are not comparable, they just shine on their own, in their own way. This, like his other books, is just another exciting opportunity to glimpse into his life.

I dont know, I think I just find humor in the fact that there are people over analyzing this book and talking and talking, especially when Kerouac was smoking pot and doing crazy fun mind opening, and even spiritual things. His soul searching, and the way he wrote about his traveling mean a lot more to me than the people who critisize it. Those are the folks who really dont have a clue.

I didn't like the book because it was sort of dumb. The author spent too much time talking about Sam not riding a horse. I wanted to learn more about the war and soldiers of the town of Boston. I wondered if Sam Adams was a part of the war.

my teacher is really absesed with Jean Fritz so she reads her books to us and this was one of them. this book is really not as bad as you may think it can be funny in some was and it is jambed with little interasting facts that JF found so it sort`ve interasting and you can learn from it. i think anybody should try even if they think it looks stupid because some books turn out to be very interasting.

Many years ago I did a report on Samuel Adams for school. This book by Jean Fritz helped me get a high grade. It did not give me the impression that people who are smarter should be excused from being a soldier or any other ideas. In fact I enjoyed it so much that to this day I love learning about the American Revolution, because Jean Fritz made learning fun for me. I suggest that everyone read it.

Clarke is an Arminian, that is he denies the doctrines of protestant reformed theology as taught by Luther, Calvin and all the great names of the protestant reformation. As such, I can't recommend this biased work to the church.

As a student of the Bible for over a decade, I've read countless commentaries on the Old and New Testaments. Most of these great authors kept quoting Dr. Adam Clarke. The information always quoted from Dr. Clarke was to say the least awe-inspiring, so I knew I had to purchase this commentary one day. The unfortunate news is that the abridger Ralph Earle has removed extremely important information such as the correct order of chapters of Jeremiah (which are incorrect in our current Bibles), as well as the 39 verses in 1 Samuel which are of doubtful authenticity, and should not have been included in the Holy Bible account. The book get three stars because I wanted to give Dr. Adam Clarke his deserved praise, but not a five star rating because of the irresponsible job done by Ralph Earle. We should all seek out the original 3-book series, or if out-of-print, search for the unabridged version on CD-Rom.

Adam Clarke's commentary is very unique. He believed in total sanctification and makes a very cogent argument for it. He is very scholarly , but very accessible. He takes the greek words and shows what they meant in greek works, like the Iliad,etc. He was not afraid to change the meaning of a verse when he thought that verse was inconsistent with the corpus of orthodoxy and to me, at least, it gives a much different interpretation than what i was taught..but he always backs up his interpretations with lucid commentary..would highly recommend..a definite call to holiness.

This book will be very helpful for many, since much of it focuses more on spirituality and 'discipleship in the grind' (prayer, forgiveness, simplicity) than on theological issues (i.e., the "Calvinism" vs. "Arminianism" debate). There are, to be sure, theological assumptions made by the authors, but they tend to take a backseat, because the aim of the book is to facilitate discussion between you and your dating partner to provide opportunity for understanding and growth. I am a high-church Anglican, and my girlfriend is a Baptist - you can't be much farther apart on the spectrum! But this book provides fairly common ground for a couple to engage each other, despite potential differences.

The book dives head-first into some issues (within the parameters of its scope), while it merely visits the outskirts of others, such as grace, which I think could have been given a more full-orbed treatment. For instance, the original Greek word for Grace, 'charis', meant, among other things, "the desirability of the beautiful". The implications of this are delightfully helpful for our discipleship and our understanding of God, but are neither mentioned nor explored. There are a few other areas where I could raise this same complaint, but I might be asking the authors to chart out more spiritual territory for the reader than they felt needed to be covered.

I would tend to agree strongly with the reviewer below that this book can be somewhat simplistic at times. The simplicity of the book is, conversely, one of it's advantages, because if you haven't had the advantage of picking up technical terms or language specific to the history of the Christian Faith you'll be more comfortable here. In addition to this, short attention spans and busy schedules are accomodated by the length of the devotionals. Just a two to three page reading each day, with five to ten questions at the end of the week fostering discussion about the readings and relating them to your life. The questions aren't aimed at having the couple regurgitate doctrines, but tease out the inner and outer spiritual life of each person in the couple as an organic thing.

Depending on your circumstances, you might want to give this a spin, even if you're not a young Christian. The first and second chapters I didn't get anything out of, so a moderately well-read individual may need to wait a bit to come across a practical, simple insight which they hadn't considered. My girlfriend and I have found the format of this book helpful (particularly the questions for discussion at the end of each week), in particular because she's not used to either maintaining a steady devotional life (especially not the kind of devotional habits we Anglican Christians have, such as common prayer and contemplation) or being engaged with theological themes. I would expect others to find this book useful, as well, but couples who are more widely read, who openly communicate with each other about their theological/spiritual reading, and who have a common devotional life may want to look elsewhere.

I like this book and recommend it as a starting place. My boyfreind and I are both strong adult christians with a view towards marriag and family. We attend church and consider God a foundation to us. However we were both a little shy about starting out to pray together, or read the bible together and so on. This book is a nice start. It is not overly heavy; each reading is short. It is not deep into theology nor does it preach. It is a nice easy starting point for us. Also I come from a more full-faith background while he is more consertive; this book has walked a nice middle ground.

My wife-to-be and I could not wait to consume the incredible insight from this devotional book. We especially loved the blend of deep spiritual thought with the "bottom shelf" practical application. This book is a must read for all dating couples, who are serious about finding THE ONE. Two enthusiastic thumbs up!

Do not buy this book! The subject is hashish oil, and thats fine. And you could problaby produce some fine oil you read this book. But it seems the writer has read "Cannabis alchemy.." By D. Gold, and then made into a cartoon. There is so little information in the book, and insted the writer has filled the book with pictures of a mad sicentist.

If you want to make hashish oil then buy "cannabis alchemy". Here you will find many details and a lot les junk!

This book and D Gold's "Cannabis Alchemy" describe basically the same proccesses, but "Cannabis Alchemy" has better illustrations, more information, and more lucid prose.

There are many people who have been very critical of this book. This is completely undeserved. This book deals with the process of turning regular everyday herb into both hash oil and hashish with cartoons and easy to understand 'baby' directions.

The method described in this book really works! It can help you take any plain Mary Jane (both high grade sativa and low grade kack) and create some very potent hash oil and hash (increasing in potency by 6 to 12 times on the Adam scale from what you started with).

...Dr. Atomic has a really useful and easy to follow cartoon drawing which uses kitchen utensils like a wok and soup pot... I would like to point out however that this book only deals with part of the process described in Cannabis Alchemy. It covers the chapters on making hash oil that is either (a) a crude extract or (b) a purified isomerized extract. From this you can also make hash - Dr. atomic breaks Gold's seven recipes down to four simple ones). Dr. Atomic does not bother describing the acetate process mentioned in Cannabis Alchemy. This is a disappointment but understandable... For some really incredible smoke expect about 25-30 hours of pretty well continuous work. The benefits are the increase in potency, far less toxins ingested and some incredible bragging rights :)

In view of one of the reviews below, I thought necessary to add a short commentary about IE studies, and thus about this book. The existence of "one" Proto-Indo-European may not have BEEN as such: rather than one unique language, Proto-IE was certainly a tight compound of very very close dialects. But the genetic relation existing between Celtic, Germanic, Balto-Slavic, Romance, Indo-Iranian, etc languages, and which we call "Indo-European" is proved and is a scientific certainty, although there is many points that are not well-clarified yet.
Thus, after the publication of Mallory and Adams' book (and many others), maybe one should wait, indeed, for the publication of a SERIOUS and scholarly book proving the non-existence of a Proto-IE language or compound of dialects.
For now, I am still waiting for a relevant and convincing bibliography.

A very good summary of Indo-European vocabulary and culture. One could argue about a few points here and there, including the high cost, but generally enjoyable and useful. I would also add that Indo-European studies are well-established.

J.P. Mallory's "In Search of the Indo-Europeans" is the best one-volume survey of the origins and dispersal of the Indo-European languages.

The "Encyclopedia" is more technical, but gives a highly detailed view of the interrelationships of the IE languages and what we can deduce concerning the speakers of the original ur-sprach.

NB: in view of the review above, and out of consideration to uniformed readers, one should point out that Indo-European linguistics is a well-established field throughout the world scholarly community.

[....] The book in no way is serious but DOES contain some definite nuggets of truth. The derision of the statement "The fact that you are holding a musical instrument in your hands does not automatically entitle you to play it." is off base I feel...the statement IS true in an Irish session. Irish sessions have, generally, unwritten and unspoken rules which one would be advised to learn before plunging in!

And it completely depends on the TYPE of session one is attending. Many "purists" come across as elitists in exclusion of "non-trad" instruments and turn their noses up at anything other than a fiddle and button accordeon. Singing is even frowned upon! Whereas many include much which is non traditional.

I felt the book was amusing and held many grains of truth. Regardless of how the man handles himself in person his book is a witty intro to the structure of Irish sessions. I certainly know some folks who could benefit from reading it!

My oh my, some people are sure getting themselves worked up about this book! Everyone I've shown this book to, especially those involved in the Irish music scene, have nearly died from uncontrollable laughter and have been completely unable to put this book down.
I truly think that the only people who don't find this book hilarious are those who are the worst session offenders and are in some sort of deep denial. Laugh a little! This book pokes good-natured fun at every instrument used in Irish music, and especially at those that are better used for other types of music, such as the autoharp. It pokes fun at the way a session works, and the way it doesn't work. It pokes fun at everything, and does it in a humerous and spot-on accurate way. I wish there was some way of making it mandatory for all session newcomers (and quite a few session regulars) to read this book.
So, if you're in the mood for a good laugh and want the best insight available on the workings of a traditional Irish music session, buy this book. You'll love it (unless you play the autoharp).
This book is a true gem and I recommend it 103.7%
Chris

This book is a must-read for session newbies, who will be introduced to the unspoken rules of etiquette at the typical Irish session, and for advanced players, who will probably get a kick out of Foy's amusing take on what very often goes wrong at sessions, and for those who attend public sessions but don't play, who will be interested to know what is really going on during a session.

I wish that this book had been available about fifteen years ago when I first took up the Irish fiddle and cluelessly dove into sessions, probably helping to drive away some really outstanding players in the process. Thank you, Mr Foy, for putting into print what I had to figure out for myself over the years, and doing so in such a funny way.

An interesting set of thoughts on the nature of fidelity and expectation. they seem as much a question to the reader as they are assertions of truth. Deep, funny, outrageous and revealing thoughts for those who like to ponder being.

Warning: This is not for the weak at heart. If you are afraid of being asked to question everything you have been taught was right and wrong, good and bad, and happy and sad, then don't buy this book. You will think the thing is evil and throw it away or something.
However, Mr. Phillips' aphorisms will make you a stronger person if you let them in. They are food for thought, though I hate to use that cliche. This man will make you reevaluate all of your ideals. And sometimes, in doing so, they become enforced. "Monogamy" makes you think, instead of telling you what you want to hear! Be shocked, and, if you're lucky, gain new meaning in your relationships with yourself and others.

Written as 121 aphorisms this book is a constant source of amusement, enlightenment and decadence. It has appealled to both male and female friends of mine and stands as essential reading for anyone who has ever doubted the merits of coupledom, and that must be everyone! Phillips comes up with thoughts and interpretations that stand alongside the greatest thinkers of the past two centuries. Always challenging and provactive the text literally moves you into a state of mind you never imagined you could feel so comfortable with. I recommend this book should be read by everyone, and the younger the better. It is a revolutionary book that's impact stands alongside writers like J.P.Sartre, J.S.Mill, Franz Fanon, Nietzsche and Karl Marx. This book makes couples nervous and single people smile.It is a delight and a work of art. Many friends of mine have bought extra copies for friends and frankly anyone criticising this book may simply be fearful of freedom itself.

So-called revealing book, but the 'pseudonyms' are only useful to deliver a series of explicit sex scenes.
When a name falls, it is 'Norma Jean Baker'.
Are the following words revealing? : 'Hollywood is the world capital of arrested development.'(p.234)
Perhaps these two last words characterize also the authors.
A waste of time.

I thought that the idea behind this book would be interesting. I was curious to know about Hollywood & the sex industry. Overall, the book wasn't too bad. There were a few times I thought I was reading an 'erotica' novel. The final 50 or so pages were disappointing. The author slowly brought you up to a climax (no pun intended) and then just dropped off. It's an interesting read but I don't know that I'd recommend it to anyone.

Is the United States a modern day version of decadent Imperial Rome just before its collapse? Read this book and draw your own conclusion!