For more info on the how aware economics is of its quasi-shortcomings and on how broad and effectual the horizon is for economic theory read poke your nose into some real Journals. A great starting place is the 1994 American Economic Review.

Particular authors who produce both lay and academic literature would be Daniel Khaneman, Richard Thaylor, W Brian Arthur, George Akerloff, Stiglitz, Gary Becker.

In summary, economics is not "flawed to the core", especially in any practical sense. It is actually becoming more powerful than ever since it's given up some of its "physics envy" obsessions.

Arnie

Ormerod is rare (I am tempted to say unique) among economists. He uses clear and straightforward English - and he has a devastating wit. Assuming that you bring yourself to read books on economics, when was the last time that one caused you to laugh aloud?

Butterfly Economics combines clear English, humour and the capacity to translate the realities of human behaviour into a credible explanation of the behaviour of economies. It is very readable, even if you are not really interested in economic theory. The importance of the book and its predecessor is that they provide a better explanation of what is going on than do conventional explanations. It explains why so much of government economic policy produces unintended side effects and it also supports the arguments of Brian Arthur and others that initial inequalities tend to become magnified. Behind the simple explanation is some quite rigorous analysis based on the mathematics of complexity, but this is kept decently in the background for the sake of the general reader.

Whereas the primary focus of attack in The Death of Economics was the assumptions underlying 'general equilibrium theory' - the cornerstone of economics and economic policy - Butterfly Economics concentrates on one aspect of human behaviour - choice. It shows what happens when one relaxes the unreal assumption that buyers form their preferences independently and are not influenced by the behaviour of others.

The storyline behind this courtroom thriller is absolutely fantastic. It took about 100 pages for the book to get really interesting, but once the story took off, I couldn't let go of the book. I can't wait to read one of his other books and I hope you enjoy 'Compelling Evidence' as much as I did.

Shortly before the appointed hour for their next meeting, however, Ben supposedly blows away the top of his head with a shotgun. No one really believes that Ben Potter killed himself though, and sure enough, we learn that not a shotgun, but a small caliper pistol like the one Talia owns was the true murder weapon. Guess what! Talia is charged with murder and Paul Madriani, assisted by "tell it like it is" Harry are her lawyers.

The drama unfolds with manageable twists, turns and surprises. The cops and the DA seemed convinced that Talia did it, but the reader is soon convinced that she's innocent, so the story has a "whodunit" element along with the courtroom drama. Martini sets his story in "Capital City" in an unnamed State, which I suspect allows him to mix and match actual legal rules and proceedings from different jurisdictions to suit his plot and courtroom activity. This is not obtrusive, at least for a non-lawyer.

It's a satisfying read; something to do while your waiting for the next Grisham novel.

Davies also gives a good overview of the various theories of how time travel might be accomplished, and the book is very useful in showing the layperson that time is, indeed, relative.

My only complaint with the book is that it is somewhat derivative of his earlier work, About Time. Part of this is not Davies' fault -- the concept of the flexibility of time is usually so shocking for people that he feels the need to explain this first, and so both books discuss some similar ideas, such as the Paradox of the Twins, etc.

I recommend About Time to people (usually who don't believe me when I explain that time is relative), and those who read it come away stunned; the book is a marvelous explanation, in layman's terms, of how Einstein's theories work with regard to time. If you have not read About Time, read this one first as it will familiarize you with the concepts Davies' discusses here. This book is a good follow up to About Time in that it turns to the "engineering" problems involved in building a time machine.

In the main part Davies succeeds admirably. It is clearly not that simple to condense highly complex mathematical equations, and concepts of and about quantum physics to a level that the ordinary person will not only grasp but perhaps think about.

The book is effectively divided into two parts. The first is a synopsis of the theories underpinning time travel. In this section Davies provides a speedy overview of the history of thinking about time travel, the development of the theories, and he attempts to at least conceptually work through the possibilities and problems associated with the main theories that hold currency.

In the second part, Davies sets out the mechanics of how to build a time machine. The content contained in is part, not matter how hard Davies tries, and despite its brevity, was very difficult for this reader to understand. Having no background in pure physics, I became a bit lost in places. But struggling through out, it is still informative and challenging.

Overall, the book is a valuable starting point for the general person to get a grip on this though provoking topic.

Truer words were never spoken. There are those who will point out detail errors in Schumacher's work. The book was, after all, written over 25 years ago, and Schumacher would never have considered himself a prophet. Yet the central theme of his work, that infinite economic growth is impossible within a finite system, and the inevitable consequences of ignoring this simple truth have been fully vindicated. Even the most orthodox economists are beginning to see the disasterous environmental and social consequences of their economic policies over the last 50+ years, which Schumacher describes in detail, and warn policy makers that major changes must be made. Schumacher also proposed a highly effective and practical method, Intermediate Technology, to help impoverished and developing nations make the best possible use of modern scientific and technological advances, without the vast (and for countless millions in the world impossible) financial investments and ecological/social consequences. In 1965 Schumacher and a few friends started the Intermediate Technology Development Group ...which continues to develop practical applications of his ideas in the developing world. Small is Beautiful - a Study of Economics as if People Mattered, along with his other two key books Good Work, which explores the question of the effects of modern economics on the individual and the very purpose of work itself, and A Guide for the Perplexed, which outlines the philosophical and spiritual underpinnings of Schumacher's work, provide a powerful and compelling alternative view of economics and our world - a view every bit as applicable today as it was in his lifetime.

An earlier reviewer who seemed to have no grasp of economics or recent history (Gen Ne Win is no more a Buddhist than Hitler was a Jew - he in fact deliberately set out to destroy the cultural and economic system of Burma - including Buddhism itself. To use this example to "invalidate" the chapter "Buddhist Economics" totally destroys this reviewer's credibility) stated that "a wise world has ignored his bad advice & prospered." Far from it. In the end, a wiser world will be forced to look back on Schumacher's book and conclude that he was, in fact, right.

Some of what Patton has to say is intriguing. Patton frequently compares the casualties of the Third U.S. Army, which he commanded in France, and those of the enemy, and German casualties are consistently much higher. Patton's nickname was Old Blood and Guts," but there is, in fact, reason to believe that he was more economical with his men's lives than the conventional wisdom occasionally suggests. Patton's competition with the British commander Field Marshal Montgomery is frequently on display. In August 1944, Patton reports that Montgomery wanted all American forces to stop their advance across France so Montgomery's could make a "dagger thrust with the Twenty-First Army Group at the heart of Germany." Patton's colleague Gen. Omar Bradley was skeptical, stating that it would be "more like a 'butter-knife thrust." In November 1944, Patton was visited in the field by Averell Harriman, the United States' Ambassador to the Soviet Union, who told Patton Josef Stalin had said: "The Red Army could not have conceived and certainly could not have executed the advance made by the Third Army across France." A lengthy footnote reports that, in December 1944, Patton ordered his chaplain to prepare a "prayer for good weather" because the general was "tired of these soldiers having to fight mud and floods as well as Germans." When the chaplain attempted to demur by saying, "Sir, it's going to take a pretty thick rug for that kind of praying," Patton replied: "I don't care if it takes the flying carpet, I want the praying done." According to Patton, when he saw Gen. Dwight Eisenhower, the Allies Supreme Commander, shortly after the Battle of the Bulge, Eisenhower never mentioned the efforts of the Third Army, and Patton clearly was hurt. (In March 1945, Patton clearly was pleased when Eisenhower attended a Third Army briefing and was "most complimentary.") And Patton shows no remorse for the notorious incident when he slapped a soldier in a hospital who clearly was suffering from a psychiatric disorder.

But the chapter on the Battle of the Bulge is more typical. It contains some useful detail about one of Patton's most successful operations, but it is almost complete devoid of color and personality. For instance, one passage states: "On [Dec. 31, 1944], the Germans made seventeen counter-attacks against us, all of which were repulsed." Is that all Patton had to say? A couple of pages later, he adds: "At midnight on the night of December 31, all guns in the Third Army fired rapid fire for twenty minutes on the Germans as a New Year's greeting. When the firing ceased, our forward observers stated that they could hear the Germans screaming in the woods." Now that's interesting!

Patton's account of his campaigns during World War II is an important document. I only regret that more of Patton's personality did not come through here. One other interesting historical note: The footnotes, which are very helpful, were prepared by Col. Paul D. Harkins, who served as Patton's Deputy Chief of Staff. After his promotion to general, Harkins commanded the United States's forces in Vietnam in the early 1960s. Harkins clearly was a better staff officer than a commander.

You will not be disappointed.

For the love of god, will someone please confiscate Paul Auster's copy of Diamond Dogs? A substandard dystopic work that wears its less-than-profound philosphical ruminations on its sleeve, In the Country of Last Things is Auster's longest title and worst book ( the best would be Leviathan, in case you're wondering. ) Here, as in the New York Trilogy, his writing is far too Livres de Poche -- meaning spare and vague, like all Camus-influenced French fiction. Worse, he has no talent for imagery, which means that this book in no way approaches Riddley Walker as a post-holocaust vision, despite what the inside jacket says. ITCOLT isn't even as good as Martin Amis's sister novel Other People. I just really didn't care for all the high-concept ideas ( such as The Runners, who run in packs until they collapse and die. ) Too cute, far too cute. Avoid.

Wonderful from many viewpoints: existential, post-holocaust, futuristic. I also think that his spare writing style was very capable indeed of painting a visual and emotional landscape.

Another writer said the method is useless on about 60% of attackers; to that I ask what method is 100% effective all the time? None Are! So, if you are interested in just sitting on your duff and not doing the exercises, but are instead waiting for some peer reviewed material, too bad.

If you are a true visionary and have an open and exploring mind, and want to see and do for yourself, then this is the book for you.

Best Wishes;

N. Duarte

The abilities described are valid, and replicable under a wide range of circumstances. For such a small book there is a lot of information presented,and I feel that the author or the editor should have gone into greater detail about the subtle body alignments that take place when you sink down into a good rooted posture.

If you're looking for a good basic book otherwise, this is the one for you. It will give the reader a firm basic grounding in the art of standing meditation. If the directions in the book are followed, and if competent skilled instruction in this method can be found at least once during the training period, then great results can and will follow.

many of the things you will learn and discover will come through as your practice matures and lengthens. the pr! ! actice of standing meditation is also beneficial for the muscles, especially the legs. It increases stamina, endurance, discipline and determination. It is quite a demanding exercise both physically and mentally.

I want to take this time to personally and publically thank Master Paul Dong and Mr. Thomas Raffill for their efforts, and the positive changes that have resulted in my life as a direct result of my practice of Zhan Zhuang (Standing Meditation).

The thinking on display in 'Spreading Misandry' is so clear, so apt, so free of cant, that even the most militant ideological feminist ought to be able to read it with something approaching delight.

And so singular and distinct is the authorial voice in the book that one can only gasp in admiration that it was in fact written by two authors. Moreover, since one of them is a man, the other a woman, readers can have real hope that the spread of misandry can be stopped by men AND women acting together for the sake of that old friend of humankind 'the common good'.

The larger purpose of the trilogy according to Nathanson and Young is to "help reverse the current polarization of men and women by laying the foundation for a new social contract between the sexes - one that takes seriously the distinctive needs and problems of both sexes. But this is far beyond the scope of this volume." In the words of authors, the "immediate goal in this [first] book has been the rather modest one of describing a phenomenon or, to be more precise, the link between two phenomena: pop cultural misandry and ideological feminism."

The authors have focused first on clearly illustrating the spreading of misandry, deliberate or unwitting, throughout much of contemporary popular culture. They support their observations meticulously within a formally structured approach. The first seven chapters are a detailed examination of instances of misandric commercial entertainment productions. The authors take an abundance of examples from the various genres in the visual arts, organize them in groupings according to their differently nuanced misandric themes, and examine each instance in a thorough critical exercise. They go to great lengths to avoid any examples but those that are clearly and unequivocally misandric.

The latter part of the book is an exploration of the implications of the phenomenon they have documented. To explain this relatively recent trend in the cultural idiom of Western societies in general and North America in particular, the authors investigate the relationship between popular cultural expressions of misandry and the historical development of feminist thought and influence, both academic and popular. In doing so, they situate both these phenomena within the context of the practical legacies of postmodern philosophical thought and its offshoots.

Nathanson and Young have succeeded without any doubt in defining the characteristics of the phenomenon that they isolate, and in demonstrating it's astounding ubiquity. They also go a long way to showing its intimate relationship with the assumptions, uncritical and unconscious or critical and deliberate, of the politically correct views on gender legitimated by the academic world.

One may, and certainly many will, find fault with their views on the pervasiveness of misandry in today's cultural forms, or on its meaning and importance, but the fault will not be due to any lack of intellectual rigour on the part of the authors. If anything they have been more thorough than should be necessary. Were it not for the contentious reception they could anticipate, such an exhaustive analysis in support of their theses might be considered unnecessary.

This book has shown me how ignorant I was at any conscious level of the rampant misandric sub texts peppering the daily fare we are being served by popular culture. As a man I have become used to a kind of generalized rhetorical misandry in the public discourse over the years, which I credited as the temporary by product of a justified and necessary feminist political movement. I compared it to the somewhat similar anti-white discourses that accompanied black and native militancy in the sixities and seventies, which I also refused to take personally or to consider as more than an impermanent expedient for sympathetic political ends. But if the authors are right, and I believe they are in the light of cumulative personal experience, misandry (and its uncritical acceptance) is not such a relatively innocuous and temporary political event. It is an indication of a far more serious malaise.

Being the rhetorical culprit does become tiring. Any white, middle-aged, north- American, middle-class, etc, male can vouch for it. If one has a strong sense of personal identity, a good sense of perspective, and at least a little sense of humour, it is by no means a truly great burden. But once being the universal culprit becomes by definition fully personal, a fundamentally defining identity, almost an inescapable raison d'être, how can it not be hard to bear, and to what end should it be borne?

I think Nathanson and Young, among other things, have hit upon the subtle fact that to remain enfranchised and politically effective in our society today almost requires becoming a vocal victim. This means victimizers are both in demand and in dwindling supply. Men (imagined in whatever particular variant expedient to the circumstances of the moment) are traditionally handily cast in that role, and today, they are rapidly becoming the only candidates for the job. What happens when, as a group, they too must claim the rights of victims, or simply decide to do so in self-defense, or out of political self-interest? If all victims are equal, and both women and men are victims, equally worthy by definition, where do we look for the unworthy victimizer required by ideological definition? Put another way, as unlikely as it may sound, the growing misandry Nathanson and Young have found in popular culture, if pushed to its logical conclusion within the context of the ideological and philosophical roots they have identified is an indication of a deep and pervasive misanthropy to come. As a philosophical foundation for political life, public human interaction, it bodes ill for the prospects of humanity does it not?

I think the book is an extremely responsible and courageous enterprise, particularly given the prevalent climate in the academic environment the authors inhabit and among the peers with whom they share it. I should like to thank them both for opening my eyes and my mind to the dimensions of a problem to which I have given only scant attention.

It's precisely this phenomenon that authors Nathanson and Young analyze in their fascinating book. Ostensibly about misandry in popular culture, it's really about much more than that. For the authors use their detailed analyses of popular movies and televisions shows as a departure point to discuss everything from the effects of industrialization on gender identity to the decline of journalistic objectivity. In fact, much of the delight in reading this book comes from how the authors are able to draw such provocative and surprising connections between seemingly unrelated topics. (For this reason, the book reminds me a bit of Camille Paglia's "Sexual Persona," although the present work will be much more accessible to the average reader.)

That accounts for the book's first two hundred pages. But it's after that, as the work moves into its final two chapters and the authors begin addressing the roots of misandry, that the going really gets interesting. Here the authors discuss such rarely acknowledged issues as racism in the early feminist movement and, in one flat-out brilliant section, they provide the best discussion of the relationship between deconstruction theory and feminism that I've ever read. These final two chapters alone are worth the price of the book.

Doubtless some readers will not agree with all of the authors' arguments. But the open-minded reader will nonetheless find much here that is fascinating and thought provoking.

This quietly and learnedly devastating appraisal of Political Correctness in all its forms is an authoritative, indeed indispensable survey of intellectual corruption, if not from China to Peru, then at least in Europe and the Western Hemisphere (by no means the United States alone). There should be no doubt about Professor Gottfried's expertise, breadth of reading, courtesy towards antagonists as well as towards allies, and diagnostic skill. His latest book is not cheap, but it represents very good value for money.

To achieve it, the therapeutic State doesn't hesitate to have resource to the same methods of social engineering formerly used by marxists, in order to change and constrain its citizens to accept without resistence the new reality, showing towards the opponents of this one an intense intolerance and a high level of dogmaticism, interfering and even restraining their freedoms, very especially, freedom of speech, forcing such citizens to be "good" from a multicultural point of view, to be sensitive and uncritic with issues like third world immigration, the devaluation of european historical past or the exaltation of non-european cultural achievements, everything under pain of severe fines or prision terms.

Obviously, in this task the therapeutic State has its allies: left political parties and also, quite surprisingly, center-right parties (they pretend to look politically sophisticated), academia, liberal protestant christianism (although I think, contrarily to Paul Gottfried, that multicultural sectarianism is much more owed to the survival and persistence of marxism spirit and political practice among western lofty minded intellectuality, that was not affected by the ideological bankrupcy of the eastern european real socialism, than to liberal protestant christianism - this last one being no more than a subproduct of that first one) and media - a "de facto" thought police.

The book is very interesting and quite accurately describes the not so soft totalitarianism that now is embracing North America and the entire Europe.