Some useful info. However, the book lacks scholarship; i.e., the book simply recites the dubious works of many Afrocentric "scholars". How is it possible to assert that three men born of same mother and father can be of different races, simply because the hue of their skins may have been different? They conjecture that the hues of Ham, Shem, and Japheth are black, dusky (olive) and fair (I suppose this means white) from their names; however, a review of concordances and lexicons hasn't yielded any support for their conjectured hues. If different hues imply different races, then most African American families include different races (probably even those of the authors). Wake up. Haven't you heard that race is a political construct. Race has no biological meaning, as was once purported in the late 19th century and the early 20th century.

I think William McKissic goes out of his way not to offend anyone in this pampmhlet, rather than tell it like it is. I think in this day and age a person should feel compelled to tell the truth, rather than to have the truth swept under the carpet. One point that Mr McKisssic fails to make is that the Hebrews who were already a dark skinned race who intermarried with the Hamatic nations to become a blend of one race. There are numerous examples which show that this misgenation of the Hebrews took place. McKissic is also incorrect in saying that Shem, Ham and Japeth were of 3 distinct races. Many scholars feel that they were of the same race, however the areas in which they chose to settle brought on the need for melanin or the lack there of in Japeth's descendant's case. But one thing is certain, many Hebrews were mistaken for Hamatic people throughout the bible. Joseph is mistaken for an Egyptian in Genesis 42, and Paul is mistaken for an Egyptian by the Romans in Acts 21:38. Also McKissic fails to mentions the pictures of Yeshua (Jesus the Christ) which clearly shows that he was black, needless to say these pictures pre-dates the Eurpean image of Christ that was created during the 15th century by at least 1000 years. I think better research would have served McKissic well, rather than not trying to ruffle any feathers. This world has been living a lie for more than 500 years, thanks to European colonialism, it is time that we correct these myths. Mr McKissic work stops short of correcting these myths, and it makes me wonder, what or who he is afraid of. Slavery is over Mr McKissic you need not bow down to any man!

what was the person who created this book thinking?o all the hard levels all his strategies say is"blow that buildin,then the next,and that one to.GREAT jOB.I bet this strategy has really helped you.as a reward to myself,i think I'l go and ask for 1,000,000 dollars from the company". an SG is supposed to give you strategies,not tell you you need to complete the level

Crapest Bpp

In this dreadful little potboiler, Anthony Giddens, LSE Director and Blair's favourite guru, ex-Observer editor Will Hutton and ten contributors, including gambler George Soros, tell us to live with global capitalism. To justify this absurd diktat, they put forward some remarkably untenable ideas.

Hutton claims that the USA has more class mobility than Europe. Wrong - Peter Gottschalk and Sheldon Danzinger showed that US workers are less socially mobile than low-paid workers in European countries. Hutton predicts, "the German economy will start to pick up quite smartly." Wrong - unemployment in Germany has now risen to more than four million.

Giddens writes that capitalism is 'fairer than most socialists tended to assume'. Wrong - 86% of Wall Street's gains go to the richest 10% in the US, and US Chief Executive Officers get on average 475 times what their blue-collar workers get. Poverty, he grandly proclaims, is no longer a condition, just the odd brief episode. Wrong - in Britain, three million old people live in poverty, and worldwide, ten million more people now live in poverty than in 1990. He writes, "capitalism has buried the working class." Wrong - worldwide, there are more workers than ever before.

Giddens tells the German government to reform its labour market and welfare system to make it more like the market, because "existing structures of the welfare state are no longer able to deliver". Wrong - it is the market that doesn't work: the average investing household in the USA, forced into stock market gambling to fund their health care, pensions and children's education, has lost $45,000 since the 2000 crash.

They tell us that after the coal-based industrial revolution, then the oil-fired economy, we are now in the third revolution, the third way of the 'knowledge-based', services economy. Wrong - Britain's decline in manufacturing is due to the dominance of finance capital, not to 'a worldwide trend towards a services economy'. Between 1973 and 1992 manufacturing output rose by 25% in Germany, 27% in France, 85% in Italy and 119% in Japan, while in Britain it rose by just 1%.

Blair presses on, trying to impose privatisation through PPP on hospitals, schools, colleges, London Underground, etc., as part of his modernising 'Third Way'. What is this? Peter Mandelson recently gave the game away when he described modernisers like himself as 'all Thatcherites now'. The Blairite pundits Anthony Giddens and Will Hutton claim to be pro-market but anti-Thatcherite.

In this book, they tell us how and why we must live with global capitalism. Hutton claimed that there is more class mobility in the USA than in Europe. Wrong - a study by economists Peter Gottschalk and Sheldon Danzinger showed that US workers had less class mobility than low-paid workers in European countries. Hutton predicted, "the German economy will start to pick up quite smartly." Wrong - unemployment in Germany has now risen over four million.

When the governors of Haringey's schools invited Hutton to put their case against a proposed Private Finance Initiative scheme, he helpfully declared that it was "the closest thing to a free lunch I have seen in 20 years of economic journalism." Wrong - under the scheme, Haringey council was forced to agree to pay the building firm Jarvis an extra £2 million a year for the next 25 years.

Giddens believes that capitalism is 'fairer than most socialists tended to assume'. Wrong - 86% of Wall Street's gains went to the richest 10% of the US population, and US Chief Executive Officers get on average 475 times what their blue-collar workers get. Poverty, he grandly proclaims, is no longer a condition, just the odd brief episode. Wrong - in Britain, three million old people live in poverty. And world-wide, 100 million more people now live in poverty than in 1990. He writes, "capitalism has buried the working class." Wrong - world-wide, there are now more workers than ever before.

He says that the German government will have to reform its labour market and welfare system to make it more like the market, because "existing structures of the welfare state are no longer able to deliver". Wrong - relying on the stock market doesn't work: the average investing household in the USA, forced into gambling to fund their pensions, education for their children and health care, lost $45,000 after the 2000 crash wiped $2.2 billion off the Nasdaq (new technology) stock market.

Hutton and Giddens tell us that after the coal-based industrial revolution, then the oil-fired economy, we are now in the third revolution, the third way of the 'knowledge-based', 'weightless', 'dematerialised' economy. Wrong - Britain's decline in manufacturing is not due to 'a worldwide trend towards a services economy'. When, between 1973 and 1992 manufacturing output in Britain rose by just 1%, it rose by 25% in Germany, 27% in France, 85% in Italy and 119% in Japan. This pure idealism implies that earlier industrial revolutions were powered by ignorant (workers), not clever like 'us' moderns. Tony Blair's favourite guru, Charles Leadbeater, recently wrote a book entitled, Living on thin air. This absurd vision of the future allows no production, no industry, no nation, no economy, no materiality - and this idealist rubbish passes as 'new' wisdom! Workers having to live on thin air - no thanks!

Andrew Hull is one of the most notorious evicition landlords in arizona, and the fact that he wrote this book purposely illustrates the fact that he attempts to lead tenants down the wrong path so that his own practice can thrive on the mistakes someone who read this book is bound to make. Undeniably, this is the worst book for someone who is having a problem with their landlord.

This is probably the worst calculus book I have ever seen. Proofs and examples are often cut short with multiple lines of calculations left out. The text is nearly impossible to understand and presented in such a way that it is unappealing to the reader. The entire book is in black and white and seems as though it is very out of date. Although it is dealing with a tough topic, this book does a terrible job of explaining concepts.

A waste from start to end, Barthelemy's work here smacks desperately of a deep desire to secure tenure for himself. By the time the reader has reached the final page, the only realization one comes to is that the author has unsuccesfully tried to fit historical facts and Shakespeare's plays into his own narrow PC categories. If Barthelemy wants to be considered an intellectual whose heart is in the right place, volunteering for GreenPeace would go further than this.

A number of the facts cited here are simply wrong, thereby throwing into question all those things I don't know about the city. Given the resources here, it seems odd that the author didn't have the book read/edited for accuracy.

Former Chief Bouza led his city in a denial of the serious crime problems that it was facing. He denied that the city had a gang problem until gang violence skyrocketed--eventually to the point where Minneapolis was labeled "Murderapolis" on the front page of the Sunday Times. He was succeeeded by two chiefs who turned around the police department and who have succeeded at reducing crime.

The difference in leadership is thatBouza advocates holding society accountable for the actions of criminals, and effective police leaders hold criminals accountable for criminal behavior.

this book was awful and boring

I tried to do a review on this book during my masters course at University. The title and sound theme of this is book as intresting and attractive as a hot best seller but after half the book, which reviews interesting case studies on real company frauds, the author tries to MARKET (sell) the International Auditing and Internal Auditors, which he himself is, to the reader (mostly targeted at the CORPORATE). He only emphises on the importance of internal audit and how it is helpful it is for a company to protect it from fraud, and how the compay should give the auditors more authority and how the auditors should be given complete clear information about facts of the company and that kind of information. The author has saftly safegaurded his line bu adding 'the dangers from within to the title'. I recon the book should be more appropriatly called 'Internal Audit'- save yourself while you can.

But I had question for the Author........ How are any one going to proctect himself and what measures should central/government authority use if a company itself is a fraud and its auditor are a part of it, (For example; Enron and Author Anderson). When the Compay itself is a fraud and its internal and external auditors (which the author sugests are the maost important protection a company or central authority has against fraud, are like Auther Anderson, Protecting its client and using loop holesin the system.