For those interested in the early maritime movement, this is an easy read, provides good background,and may serve to help one grasp the early maritime struggles. However, there are no notes, nor a bib. Berwick paints Furuseth as pratically the greatest man since Jesus Christ. Well, I suppose it is mentioned that he was stubborn, and could not differentiate between a communists, and a wobblie, however Old Andy's flaws are underplayed. Try seeking William Camp's San Francisico; Port of Gold for information on the 19th century and Bruce Neslon's Workers on the Waterfront, for a more detailed, and balanced view of the maritime movement in the 20th century.

I read this book in Jerusalem. It was Sept. of 94 and I have not forgotten it. It was so good, I'm searching my library for it and if I can't find it, I will have to buy another.

This little 90-page softback book disappointed me. I was hoping for something just a bit better than a host of generalizations. There was little quantification of the various angles, weights, and lengths to satisfy the curious golfer seeking to better understand modern golf clubs. For example, it would be helpful to include a table showing the ranges of loft angles for the irons and woods (metals). Ranges of shaft lengths for the clubs, especially the modern drivers, would also have been of use to the beginning golfer to provide some ideas of the changes that are occurring in club manufacture.

It would have been nice to point out that the wedges are the shortest, but heaviest clubs; while the driver is the longest, but lightest club.

The dissertation on golf balls did not not mention that the distance golf balls travel is limited by USGA rules, so that no manufacturer can realistically claim his ball outdistances all others, for, if true, it would be illegal. T! here is a semiannually-updated list of conforming balls published by the USGA. It was not mentioned that there is a minimum diameter for the golf ball, but no maximum; and there is a maximum weight, but no minimum. There was no mention of the fact that there are a variety of "oversize" balls, sometimes called magna or magnum, which certain golfers may find advantageous in use, if only from a psychological point of view.

There was no warning that there are certain limitations in the USGA rules on club design that are worthy of note, especially in putters. The unsuspecting consumer might easily purchase a putter with either an illegal grip or an illegal lie angle.

The book needed a bit sharper editing, also. There is a section on lie angle and the impact board in which the author states,"When the club hits the board, presumably at the same time or just after impact, a mark is left on the sole of the club, the heel of the club is off the ground, and the lie is too flat." I ! thought, "Huh?" After rereading the sentence several times,! I decided he meant to say a mark is left on the sole near the TOE of the club...

The author emphasizes the absolute must need for getting properly fitted clubs throughout this little book. He even states that "Ill-fitted clubs will do more to retard your progress than anything else." Although I'm all for well-suited clubs for an individual, it makes me wonder how on earth Sam Snead ever developed one of the greatest swings and golf games of all time while cutting clubs out of old hickory branches!

Oh, well, it won't be the last time I buy a golf book I didn't need.

Zalezhnik shows why Lacan did not exaggerate in condemning American psychoanalysis as a disgrace to the memory of Freud. A self-styled classical analyst (who alienated most of the faculty and students of the Harvard Business School), Zaleznik understands nothing of the truly revolutionary meanings of what Freud wrought. This book is psychoanalytic pap.

I have not read this book and on the advertisement for it there is no information other than the title to help decide whether it might be interesting to me. But, if the use of 'psychohistory' in the title is anything to go by, perhaps I could suggest having a little mountain of salt on the side, to take at judicious moments, if you read this book. The only reason I say this is that I imagine the book maybe has some connection with Lloyd deMause's Internet stuff on psychohistory.

On the other hand, because of the first word 'Pseudohistory' maybe the book would be a debunker of various myths, and maybe it would be worth a look!

Since I am not familiar with Lincoln and am a non-US-citizen, the lack of any further information about the book on ......... is a great nuisance.

I love this book, but the CD is hideous. 'Hypertext' means a lame application named DynaText. It's far worse than browsing the web. On my Win 2k machine, the fonts are way too big (and not readily adjustable), tables are grotesquely ill-formatted, ... I'm throwing out the CD. It's a shame: a good HTML version of this material would be wonderful. But this isn't it. Buy the book, definitely. Don't waste your money on the CD.

There's been a flood of books by and about screenwriters in
recent years: Fante/Southern/Trumbo/Bolt/Salter/Laurents/
Waterhouse/Dahl/Siodmak/Goldman/Gordon/Hayes/Raphael ... All
are good to excellent; at the very least they're competent and
achieve professional publication standards. This hopelessly
addled claptrap, cluelessly cobbled together by the Abbott &
Costello of film scholarship, is an alltime low. They think
the episode of TV's M*A*S*H made in black-and-white -- obviously to
approximate Korean War-era news reportage -- is an example of
"noir style." Which would make every episode of I LOVE LUCY and
WAGON TRAIN and the Walt Disney show prior to the advent of color
TVs all examples of "noir." (As for the M*A*S*H episode "sans
sound" -- fellas, adjust that volume control -- or your hearing
aids!) Their prose? Get a load of this: "In retrospect, the
cold war's outbreak foreshadowed the ruin of Polonsky's body of
work as a touchstone for the immediate future for the American
art film." Wow. Their critical acumen? TELL THEM WILLIE BOY IS
HERE is "widely hailed as the ultimate cinematic critique of
American western mythology." Really? More so than another little release that same year -- what was it called? -- THE WILD
BUNCH? Edward Dmytryk's "visual sadism" was "often realized
through the direction of Robert Ryan." By "often" they mean
"once." (In CROSSFIRE -- after which Dmytryk didn't direct Ryan
again for about 20 years, and then only in a cameo as a
sympathetic general in ANZIO.) The whole book is like this!
Every page, often every sentence, sometimes each PART of a
sentence -- is simply harebrained. In their hilarious attempt
to describe the trend of movie stars breaking free of the old
studio system and forming their own companies, instead of citing,
say, Humphrey ("Santana") Bogart, or John ("Batjac") Wayne, or
Kirk ("Bryna") Douglas -- or Burt Lancaster, Robert Mitchum, etc.
-- who do they come up with? Why, none other than that prolific
producer whose career positively THRIVED beyond the studio era,
that double threat: Hedy Lamarr (hey, rhymes with "noir")!
A laff riot.