Smart and very interesting work by Campos. The questions posed by the book are not exactly related to the law. The questions are about the American society. Law addicted American society creates more laws to settle all their disputes including their interpersonal relationships. On the other hand, the author states that more law is not the answer to solve their problems. Basically, Campos shows us the effects of law in our daily lives and how our lives are dominated by law. First of all, he knows how to criticize American law because he questions law obsessive American culture that causes to a law fed up society. An obsessive-compulsive disorder in the American culture results with the assumption that all disputes can be resolved through the use of reason in this case legislation. The Jurismania helps with simplifying many issues about the contemporary American legal system. I recommend this book for those who like the law too much.

Campos uses pop culture and personal experience to weave a side-splitting account of how enamored we have become with the legal process. He handily demonstrates that even as we lament the shortcomings of the legal system, we become more and more dependent on this peculiar form of dialogue and decision-making. Like junkies who no longer enjoy the high, yet still reach for the needle, Americans not only continue to use the legal process to resolve all forms of dispute -- we also allow law into every corner of our lives. Campos takes us on field trips into grocery stores, classrooms, libraries, and even the doctor's office, while pointing out the legal markers which have infilitrated each of these bastions of 20th century life. This book is provocative, insightful, and a necessary reminder of how obsessive we have become. Most of all, it's so funny you'll enjoy the lecture.

I got this book after reading a nasty review of it in the New York Times. The book had really upset the reviewer, and after reading it I can see why it did. It's a merciless indictment of the defenders of the legal status quo, and it's also hilarious. If you've ever thought the American legal system was crazy, this book explains why you were right.

As someone who has practiced law for more than a decade, I can't think of a better book for a lawyer, or especially someone thinking about being a lawyer, to read. If we had more law professors who thought like Campos, we wouldn't have the system that he so thoroughly devastates in this book.

I just finished reading this book and was very surprised to find a reviewer who said that it is about reincarnation. This book is about Near Death Experience and about human transformation. I do not remember reading anything about reincarnation at all.

What I do remember reading was a book that echoed very strongly with my own thoughts and feelings about life and death. I enjoyed reading about the "future predictions" and "paranormal powers," but I don't need this information to motivate my life. What I need, and what I found in this book, are powerful statements about the connection of all life, the strength of love, the need to open our hearts and give, and the need to affirm the divine nature of all humankind. Deep spiritual values that are at the heart of all religions (yes, I have read them in my bible too!).

My mother is 82 years old and beginning the evolution to her death. I will soon begin reading this book to her. I have asked my brother and sister to read this book. I hope that we can work together to "de-stress" our hearts and minds as we participate in a death in our family.

The author was struck by lightning in 1975, and was "dead" for 28 minutes, during which time he recalls leaving his body and being transferred to a realm of light, where 13 Spirit Beings spoke with him. He experienced a "life review," in which he was able to experience himself and his actions through the perceptions and feelings of all those whom his life had affected. The Spirit Beings gave him 117 specific predictions of the future, including previews of such events as the fall of the Soviet Union and the nuclear disaster at Chernobyl. Brinkley was also returned to life on earth with a mission - to build Centers for the cultivation of spirituality from a non-religious perspective.

Years later, Brinkley had a second NDE while having heart surgery. He experienced another life review, and gained further insghts that were to help him in the future - although he has considerably less to say about this NDE than about the earlier one.

During his recovery from the 1975 lightning strike, Brinkley discovered that he had apparently spontaneously developed the ability to read the thoughts and feelings of other people, and to foretell certain kinds of future events with a high (though not perfect) degree of accuracy. The effects of these new-found abilities on his life are documented in this book.

Brinkley has found a niche (his life's purpose) in hospice work, using the accounts of his experiences to help relieve the dying of the fear of death, and using a pre-death version of the "life review" process to help the dying come to terms with the events and effects of their lives. The net effect of Brinkley's work seems to be to help people die in a state of relatively greater peace and dignity.

Brinkley's NDEs included no sense of being judged by the Beings of Light. Rather, he says that we are much harsher judges of ourselves than any other being(s) might be, and that the after-death life review gives us an opportunity to do that judgment. However, no particular penalties or rewards seem to be imposed or granted from without.

As the book closes, Brinkley has built a functional prototype Center, and he discusses the effects of its use on clients or subjects. From Brinkley's point of view, the cultivation of spirituality seems to be related to out-of-body experiences, meetings with dead loved ones, and other such experiences that are generally considered occult or psychic in nature.

I enjoyed this book, in that it seems to promote a very loving and compassionate attitude toward ourselves and others, and to encourage kindness as a primary virtue. According to Brinkley, "random acts of kindness" turn out to be what matter most, in a positive sense, from the perspective of a life review.

On the question of whether Brinkley's experiences, and the many similar accounts of NDEs, provide a genuine preview of what we can expect when our fleshly bodies expire and we leave the earthly scene, I am not prepared to issue an opinion.

In this second book Mr. Brinkley goes into considerably more detail about his Near Death Experience, hospice work, and the Centers that he was directed to build by Spirit Beings. It is a most inspiring and comforting account- this is the third time that I've read it since its publication. Always central is the message that he was directed to bring back to this life, namely, that we are all mighty spiritual beings who came here to cocreate with God out of a spirit of love.
It occured to me in reading this that he has recreated the ancient profession of the psychopomp, the guide to the spirit world. Indeed, his Centers sound remarkable like an updated version of the psychomanteum, a temple where people can go to have mystical visions and/or direct contact with spirits. I can see where this would correct a profound imbalance in the modern psyche.
The author also recounts the visions of the future that he was given in 1975...

While only a fifth of this book involves the actual debate between William Lane Craig and Gerd Ludemann, it was the highlight of a book that also includes articles from others commenting on the points made in the debate. Unfortunately, I didn't feel Lundemann was on the same page as Craig, who laid out a clear and concise plan of why the historical resurrection is true. At the time of the debate, Ludemann apparently considered himself to be a Christian, though he has apparently changed his mind since this debate and now declares himself a nonbeliever. Ludemann has a theory (hallucination) that I just don't see how everything matches up. Ludemann does not seem to give an adequate explanation to many important points made by Craig. Except for a disconnect on the actual debate, though, the book is worth a read for those wanting two sides to the issue of Christianity's most important claim.

Philosopher William Lane Craig has spilled a lot of ink over the topic of the (alleged) resurrection of Jesus. Craig argues that the best explanation for the apparent resurrection of Jesus is that God actually did raise Jesus from the dead. More recently, Craig has taken to defending his ideas in debate with liberal theologians who doubt that Jesus really was resurrected from the dead. This is the second book Paul Copan edits that records such a debate. In the first, *Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up?*, Craig's sparring partner is John Dominic Crossan. While the first is a dud (Craig and Crossan largely talk past each other, and Craig repeatedly questions Crossan's rationality), but this second installment is much better. In *Jesus' Resurrection*, Craig and Gerd Ludeman do more to confront each others' positions directly.
Craig bases his belief in the resurrection on what he sees as four incontrovertible facts: (1) Jesus was buried, (2) Jesus' tomb was discovered empty, (3) Some people report having seen Jesus after his death, and (4) Jesus' followers preached the resurrection when they had every reason not to. Craig argues that the best explanation for these facts is that God did indeed raise Jesus from the dead. Ludeman argues instead that Jesus' followers had visions of the risen Jesus for psychological reasons.
Craig certainly comes off better in the debate. Craig is a brilliant debater (even though he tends to blithely appeal to scholarly consensus, and is by no means above declaring his opponents irrational or prejudiced against him), and Ludeman is not. Not surprising--one would expect a philosopher to be a better debater than a historian. Because of this, many will conclude that Craig comes away the victor, as having demonstrated his case.
However, when one gets to the responses to the debate by four excellent scholars that one gets to see the gaps in Craig's arguments. (Craig himself does an excellent job of making the gaps in Ludeman's arguments apparent.) In particular, Michael Goulder's piece develops an idea similar to Ludeman's in a way that is far more sophisticated than Ludeman's view.
In the end, as with most debates, the issue ends unresolved. Craig is surely right that Ludeman's theory does not explain (or explain away) facts (1) and (2), and does not do especially well at explaining facts (3) and (4). But Ludeman's hypothesis is not the only, and I doubt even the most plausible, naturalist alternative. And Craig never really considers the possibility that (1)-(4) are not well-established facts at all. Only for Jesus' crucifixion do we have any references from non-interested sources. In his debate with Crossan, who denies that (1) and (2) are facts at all, Craig's only response is to claim that Crossan's position is not that of most Bible scholars, as if mere consensus determined truth. It is too bad that Crossan did not take Craig to task when he had the chance.
In short, while Craig does a good job of confounding Ludeman's arguments, he does not do so admirably when his own views are called into question, generally responding with blatant appeals to consensus and personal attacks. (As an aside, I take especial offense at the claim he makes in nearly all his apologetic works that his opponents deny his view because their philosophical commitments prejudice their evaluation of the evidence, while refusing to acknowledge the possibility that his belief in miracles has prejudiced HIS reading of the evidence. Sometimes I feel that Criag doth protest too much.) Yet for all that, Craig is undoubtedly a brilliant thinker who takes his task seriously and approaches it accordingly. His arguments cannot be ignored. And neither can the arguments of his opponents, which in their own writings (not in the context of a debate) are presented with much more force.
*Jesus' Resurrection* will not resolve the issues, but it does an excellent job of showing what the issues are. This is certainly not the place to finish an examination into the (alleged) resurrection, but it is a great place to start. With patience and care, one can get a lot out of this book, whatever one's religious persuasion happens to be.

Comparing "Jesus' Resurrection: Fact or Figment" with the similar book "Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up", I found that the former was a much better read. Both debaters in "Jesus' Resurrection" give a clear and concise outline of their main points and the essays provided are representative of both sides. In evaluating the debate and essays, being as objective as one can be, I believe that a better case was given for the "Resurrection Hypothesis" compared to the "Hallucination Hypothesis". Ludemann and company rely on unfounded presuppositions. Namely, a late dating of Mark's Gospel, improper exegesis of 1 Cor. 15, and a dogmatic denial of miracles. Obviously this topic is founded on the beliefs in God and miracles. It would probably have been more appropriate to have a debate on the existence of God and the plausibility of miracles since liberal theologians seem to deny their existence. Nonetheless, the reader profits from reading the book through gaining an understanding of two major systems of belief.

In "The Red Horsemen", Admiral Jake Grafton travels to post-Soviet Russia to monitor the dismantling of that country's nuclear arsenal. Stephen Coonts, Grafton's creator, brews up a tale of crooked Russians, homocidal CIA agents and black market nukes being sold amid the disintegration of Russia. Unfortunately, the story bogs down quickly when Grafton gets to Russia - mostly because the plot becomes overly complicated, but also due to the sheer implausibility that Coonts inserts into the story - like Grafton's single-handed destruction of a formation of highly agile Su-27 fighters while himslef flying only a hoggish Su-25; the novel's climax has the hero meet Saddam Hussein face-to-face and exact a measure of justice in an ending that seems incredibly pat for Coonts. Even that ending would seem worse had it not capped off a book full of plot twists that don't come together. Coonts' original "Flight of the Intruder" was a great book because it resisted the temptation to become the sort of technothriller that "Horseman" is. Instead, take out "Cuba" in which Coonts returns to form.

The Red Horseman finds regular Coonts character Jake Grafton, now working for the DIA, traveling to the post Cold War Russia to prevent their nuclear weapons from turning up in places like the Middle East, struggling against CIA and KGB operatives along the way. The appearences of two world leaders adds a certain realism to the story. The story itself is rather complicated but does not seem that way with Coonts's style of writing. The flying scenes were wonderfully described, as usual, and the book also includes a particularly well written combat scene with special forces near the end. This is one of the better and more original novels to revolve around Russia after communism and the Cold War, a much too overused subject in many military and political thrillers. This may be Coonts's best book.

Stephen Coonts's very best so far! A well-researched, fast-paced and easy-to-read thriller which deals with the story of a nuclear power plant explosion, caused by a renegade general intent on using the disaster to gain him access to a tactical nuclear weapons storage depot, to sell them to Saddam Hussein. Meanwhile, members of the CIA are dropping down like flies in a binary poisoning plot which claims the life of a British newspaper tycoon(a thinly fictionalised Robert Maxwell) and could have been lifted from THE X-FILES. The flying sequences are as ever, as brilliant as Dale Brown with all the autheticity and fully-explained technics you could want, and it's interesting to see Jake Grafton handle Russian fighters for a change! The final scenes in Saudi Arabia and Iraq provide an excellent backdrop to the mission to retrieve the stolen warheads, and the Moscow scenes are also authentic and well-researched. Once again, like Tom Clancy's CARDINAL OF THE KREMLIN, it brought back memories of my visit there. Well done Stephen Coonts, and an ideal starting point for those new to this excellent author's work!

This is a strange mixture and I have to admit to very much disliking it when I first picked it up. It is a translated version of what was originally a French work and the English to me seemed a bit florid and dramatic. I am not sure if that is the translation or if the French naturally write in that style. I would however recommend people who are interested in Napoleon to persevere - it is a strange sort of book but worth the read.

I say this for two other reasons - firstly because Kauffmann has read just about every primary source about Napoleon's exile on St Helens - a tiny island pretty much in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean and secondly because Kauffmann knows first hand about captivity.

After reading this book a little = and not enjoying it I read the author biography - this man spent some years as a captive in Beirut in the 1980's. Returning to the book I started to realise that this is more than just a book about Napoleon, or about a travellogue to the island. This is a story about captivity and its psychological side. Kauffmann is very clearly the right man to write about it. The oppression of captivity overwhelms the writing sometimes. Kauffman clearly found the place oppressive - he keeps talking of the town itself squeezed between two mountains - it is one of his repetitive themes and I get the sense that if he didn't sail out there expecting to dislike the place, his dislike of it coloured his later writings about it.

I think this book could just as easily be named 8 days on St Helens as the book is divided into chapters for each day. So his trip is dealt with chronologically - the information about Napoleon ducks and dives - often with seemingly little logic to it. However if you are looking to learn about Napoleon's last years they are touched on - more so Napoleon as a man is revealed. His impatience (he drove each day on the island in a carriage with two wives of his officers - but went at such high speed as to throw them around - a demonstration of power?) his arrogance.

There are also interesting insights into the man prior to his captivity - for instance I never knew Napoleon couldn't speak perfect French - (he spoke it badly and confusingly at times - muddling his words and pronunciations). However I don't think Kauffman explains anything new to most scholars of Napoleon. He mentions that Napoleon considered going to America before settling for surrendering to the English - why did he change his mind?

So you can read this book on many different levels - a story of St Helens, a mixed bag of Napoleonic history, or a story of captivity. All have different merits in this - but they are all mixed together. I don't know that I would recommend making a special trip to get it - but worth reading if you haven't much else to do.

I read this book on a flight to France, and was mesmerized by the author's lapidary prose and his ability to bring to the reader a keen sense of loneliness and desolation. According to the author, Napoleon spent a good deal of his last six years trying to figure out what went wrong at Waterloo...the sort of torment worthy of Greek mythology. Feeling broken and forgotten, the former emperor, to quote General McArthur, "faded away", dying as much of depression as of physiological causes.

A few days after finishing the book, I visited Napoleon's tomb at the Hotel des Invalides in Paris. It's very grand, and I'm sure he would have loved it. Enshrined, perhaps even resurrected, in this manner, Napoleon has the last laugh.

I am not disparaging the earlier reviews of this book. But, I found the theme to be one of reconciliation. Kauffmann used his trip to reconcile the mythical glory of Napoleon's reign with the factual emptiness surrounding his imprisonment. Along the way, he found other aspects that needed reconciliation. The "Saints" enjoy the benefits of their status with the United Kingdom, yet don't appreciate them. The French consul's father had a productive life in France, yet chose to live as a recluse in St. Helena. The consul paints flowers that grow on a desert island. And Napoleon's former tomb is a lush contrast to his living quarters at Longwood. There are also failed attempts at reconciliation, such as Napoleon's frequent attempts to understand how he lost at Waterloo. Behind all these attempts is the almost silent struggle by Kauffmann to reconcile his own experiences as a captive with those that Napoleon endured.

It's a very ambitious project that Kauffmann undertook. Fortunately, he pulled it off with incredible elegance. His descriptions of St. Helena and Longwood give a vivid image of the bleakness of both settings. Addtionally, his reflections on Napoleon's deteriorating condition are very poignant. Non-fiction does not ususally make one reflect on such things as the effect of isolation on a soul and the need for reconciliation in one's life. The fact that Kauffman has made a book that tackles such issues in an intelligent manner makes it one which everyone should read.

I had high hopes for this book, but I was greviously disappointed. The parallels between Christ and pagan saviors (especially the Persian god Mithras) are infinitely fascinating to me. I looked forward to discovering more credible information that I could add to my mental databank. Unfortunately, I found the author making wild claims with little or no substantiation. At one point, Graves even admits that many of his claims are overblown and that many of the examples he cites don't fit his theories, but he excuses this because of the overriding importance of the book's rhetorical purpose! This is inexcusable. This book contains unsubstantiated arguments and lacks appropriate source citations to original research. For all I know, Graves made up half the stuff in it. If he didn't, he doesn't tell us where to find his original sources. I'd excuse this as a relic of the time period when he was writing, except that Edward Gibbon lived even earlier and it seems to me he did a much better job of documenting his source material. I was very disappointed in this book.

A very interesting book from a historical and a religions perspective. But let me warn you, this book is not for everyone. The book looks at the 16 religious saviors that were crucified in their persepctive religions, all before the advent of Christianity. There are many chapters covering the similarities of the different religions and their saviors.

One of the most intriguing chapters is the one comparing the Hindoo savior Krishna's similarities with Jesus. The chapter lists 346 similarities from the teachings of the perspective religions as written in the Bible and the Baghavat Gita (Hindoo Bible). It is quite startling, considering Krishna lived thousands of years before Jesus.

The book is more or less a basher of Christianity, not the faith itself but the belief that Jesus was the only savior ever to come to earth based on the writings in the Bible. It shows that other religious writing previous to the Bible in other religions listed their own crucified saviors. Kind of a religious mans "Age of Reason" if you will.

The book is interesting but seems to lack some proof in a few areas when listing older saviors. But he also lists sources and historical documents for many of them. I feel he would have been better off listing 10 or 12 instead of 16. But overall it is worth the read for anyone with an open mind or who is curious about ancient religions. I have read both better and worse but this book is not a waste of time.

After reading this book, my belief system was thrown into complete chaos. Never had I read such a treatise that tears into fundamenalist's oft-repeated arguments about their one true savior and renders them impotent- and this book was written over 100 years ago! Most striking is when the author points out errors in the Bible that call to question the accuracy of it and in the process, puts a challenge to the entire Bible (for example: How did the wise men come from the east if they were following a star in the east?). I can only think of two things wrong with this book. One, since it is over 100 years old, some of the spellings are incorrect (such as Mohammad-Mahomet and Quetzalcoatl-Quetxacote). Also, the author believed that with his book, fundamentalist Christianity would cease to exist. Unfortunately, this did not come true. This book is well written and calmly written, unlike other books that attack Christianity, which engage in wild theories and are usually written by people who have a prior agenda against Christian fundamentalists (such as homosexuals and atheists) Highly recommended for anyone who wants to be challenged or challenge ignorance.

This book is poignant and disturbing. It shows how modern liberals have created the "managerial state," which is author's euphemism for the "welfare state." This state has been expanding throughout the twentieth century, reaching frightful proportions. What is most troubling is not its recurring inefficiency, but rather the power that the state has acquired vis-a-vis society. The pretext is protection of the individual set adrift in the industrial society, the rhetoric is that of compassion and assistance, the reality--an ever more powerful state that crushes individuality.

The author notes how cunning the proponents of modern liberalism have been by not talking about things as they are and substituting the rhetoric of compassion for a plain statement of facts. "The uninterrupted exercise of its power may depend upon not talking plainly about such unclean matters. Yet, it is worth the effort to look beyond euphemism to see how political power is exercised. Behind the mission to sensitize and teach 'human rights' lies the largely unacknowledged right to shape and reshape people's lives. Any serious appraisal of the managerial regime must consider first and foremost the extent of its control--and the relative powerlessness of its critics." This assessment is right on target.

This book is written primarily for other scholars and graduate students, and the reading can get dense and heavy on proper names and references to ideological doctrines. Yet, the political bias in academia being what it is, I am a university press agreed to publish this book. I found this book perceptive, erudite, and enjoyable. Pick it up today.

In this sobering analysis of the pluralist welfare state,Professor Gottfried castigates statists for dishonesty inexpropriating the term "liberal" from its original meaning as defending individual property rights and maintaining a civil order with culturally and religiously formed social expectations to marginalizing any dissent from the managerial welfare state and its deliberate undermining of once commonly shared moral precepts. He explains how democracy became subverted from community-based self-rule with restricted participation to a mass plebiscite that votes itself largesse from the public treasury. By diluting civic participation from direct involvement in community affairs to a universal right to vote without further responsibility, cultural insurgents were better able to elect demagogues who could promise something for nothing. And Gottfried warns the reader that despite some populist grumbling, the elitist nomenklatura controlling the levers of political power and media influence operate largely without significant opposition to the goals of transforming society from the independent and culturally homogenous bourgeois classes that honor values of thrift, industry and propriety with a motley crowd of peoples who share no common interest except demands for special favors bestowed by an ever expanding and intrusive centralizing government that deliberately blurs distinctions between state functions and public involvement in civic affairs.

After Liberalism describes the pedigree of traditional liberal political philosophy, which included support of a free market and restraints on undisciplined appetites, primarily by informal enforcement of social and cultural norms. The government was afforded the limited rôles of civil order and martial pursuits. Readers of Adam Smith, John Locke, Alexander Hamilton, Ludwig von Mises and F. A. Hayek are aware of this expropriation of the term "liberal" to mean a therapeutic, intrusive, egalitarian and moral-relativist welfare state envisioned by J. S. Mill and John Dewey among others, although on occasion a natural harmony between democracy and market economy was alleged. Gottfried plumbs the minds of both advocates and critics of custodial pluralism.

After Liberalism is largely a genealogy of how liberalism as anideology has been constructed over time and through changingcircumstances. Gottfried argues that there is no fixed "essence" of liberalism. He points out the necessity of contextualization when tracing liberalism through history (p. 36). Gottfried states that two mistakes are usually made by analysts-either the assumption that liberalism has remained the same throughout the past, or the assumption that the past was a progressive, linear, inevitable prelude to the current definition of liberalism (p. 36). Gottfried contends that such global theories ignore the distinctiveness of specific phases of history (p. 38). This is an important point for Gottfried since he will use it throughout his book to argue that a "semantic theft" (p. 29) has taken place, in which the terms "liberal democratic" have been appropriated as a figleaf to cover up illiberal uses of power by those who administer the modern mangerial state.

Gottfried presents the reader a tale of two liberalisms-the classical and the managerial. He argues that there is a historical discontinuity between classical liberalism, with its emphasis on minimal government interference in the private lives of citizens, as imagined in the nineteenth century, versus the managerial liberalism of the twentieth. Gottfried states that the difference is that managerial liberals believe "letting people go their own way will not suffice to make them open-minded or civic spirited" (p. 17). Liberal democracy" has come to mean not a form of government, but a process akin to evangelism where the government impresses it on its own people and then on the world (p. 68). Liberals are attempting to self-fulfill their own prophecy. Gottfried points out liberalism must expand itself, otherwise it will not be able to claim that its principles are universally applicable. The United States has been hijacked as well as liberalism by the managerial elite. It now is a tool for their agenda-it is billed as a "universal nation," hence the open borders policy that has been pursued in recent years (p. 76). Besides this internal policy of "universalization," the managers have also embarked upon an external policy as well, with the United States again serving as the preferred instrument.

A major aspect of Gottfried's analysis is the role psychological intimidation and exclusion plays in the managerial state. Managerial liberalism needs an Other to marginalize, in order to realize its claims of "making the world safe for democracy." That Other is "fascism" (p. 18). Those who are critical of the current regime are labeled as extremists or fascists and are summarily condemned (p. 139). In an attempt to make citizens free, the managerial state has created a type of prison. Gottfried identifies the source of this carceral logic as the medicalization of politics (p. 80). The state has a therapeutic function, ensuring mental health by fighting pathologies like insensitivity, fascism, and so on. There is great irony in managerial liberalism as an ideology that uses totalitarian methods for antitotalitarian ends. Citizens have become patients. Dissenters have become dehumanized (p. 91). Gottfried points out that people are afraid to oppose the official values of the regime (p. 95). Unlike past totalitarian regimes, this one acts by "concealing its operation in the language of caring" (p. 141). It hides its power. Its real agenda is to "shape and reshape people's lives" (p. 141). The state engages in behavioral modification (p. 107). It is important to note that the term "totalitarian" is being used here differently than would usually be expected. "Totalitarian" describes the universal, totalizing ambitions of managerial liberalism, in terms of its desire to reach into every aspect of the lives of the citizenry, including private thoughts and lifestyle preferences. It does not necessarily mean physical, violent, secret-police style repression.

After Liberalism serves the function of unmasking and revealing the dynamics of power at work in contemporary Western society. Gottfried is wise to avoid prophecy or prescriptiveness, stating "no attempt has been made to chart any supposedly inevitable future for the managerial state" (p. 135). He makes it clear that his sympathies lie with populist resistance to the managerial state, and his text is replete with defenses of and appeals to human particularity and local rather than global conceptions of rights and community. His mode of argumentation exposes the inherent inconsistency, and thus irrationality, in the supposedly rational managerial ethic. The managerial state presumes to protect plurality and diversity by criminalizing "insensitivity" toward racial, sexual, and other "disadvantaged" groups, yet its methods yield conformity and stamp out true human particularity and diversity. By denying the managerial state its rational foundation, Gottfried exposes the fact that the regime maintains its legitimacy only because of its provision of benefits and services, much like ancient Roman "bread and circuses" (p. x), to an increasingly fearful and skeptical population.

Ultimately, Gottfried's text deserves praise for contributing yet another nail into the coffin of liberal democratic rationalism. It arrives in print in the midst of exciting times, where the political climate, like other arenas of human thought and action, are quite simply a mess. Events have transcended terms such as "left" and "right," as can be seen in the recent endorsement of Patrick Buchanan (who is well in line with Gottfried's sympathies) by the African-American ultraleftist Lenora Fulani. After Liberalism therefore performs an important stocktaking function for those interested in an account of contemporary Western politics, especially in light of its unusual and promising ideological and epistemological debts.

Paul W. Roberts has written a thoroughly engaging book about the Magi's quest for the infant Jesus. The ill tempered Iranian guide was all too real. Having actually traveled this route myself, I have to say Roberts has captured the mood and atmosphere very accurately. The other book that I recently read which also captured the accuracy of this time and place is the wonderful and controversial "The Autobiography of Jesus of Nazareth and the Missing Years" by Richard G. Patton. Both these books evoke a forgotten and magical route. If your taste is present commentary on historic times, your choice should be "In the search of Jesus". If you want a riveting and original account of the man, choose "The Autobiography of Jesus of Nazareth and the Missing Years". For the best of all worlds, buy both these remarkable books.

Just finished "In Search of the Birth of Jesus". I'm a layman with a casual interest in the subject, and I was intrigued by the book. Paul is an excellent writer, but boy oh boy, his editor didn't help any. Major shortcomings: the book desperately needs a map, or maps, showing Paul's route (deduct 1 mark); also, how about a bibliography or list of references, 'cause Paul quotes numerous sources (deduct 1/2 mark); and pictures-you know, a picture's worth a thousand words, and in spite of Paul's admirable descriptive passages, hey, it's the 20th century, soon to be the 21st (deduct 1/2 mark); and finally, a glossary would have been useful, e.g., some background on Zoroaster, and the myriad of other historical figures mentioned throughout the book. So much for constructive criticism. So what's good about the book? Paul's a good story teller, and has done his research. For the amateur religious historian there is lots of new perspective provided on old questions. As a travelogue there are many amusing passages, as well as interesting revelations, particularly about Iran. A good read in spite of the book's shortcomings.

Paul W. Roberts has written a thoroughly engaging book about the Magi's quest for the infant Jesus. The ill tempered Iranian guide was all too real. Having actually traveled this route myself, I have to say Roberts has captured the mood and atmosphere very accurately. The other book that I recently read which also captured the accuracy of this time and place is the wonderful and controversial "The Autobiography of Jesus of Nazareth and the Missing Years" by Richard G. Patton. Both these books evoke a forgotten and magical route. If your taste is present commentary on historic times, your choice should be "In the search of Jesus". If you want a riveting and original account of the man, choose "The Autobiography of Jesus of Nazareth and the Missing Years". For the best of all worlds, buy both these remarkable books.

This book is a good light easy to carry overview but really short on some very significant details (com interop in particular) and has too much on useless topics like how to draw a circle on a form. It works as a readable introduction to vb.net but comes up short as a reference. After reading it I found myself constantly failing to find the information I needed.

Great new additions to vb.net such as regular expressions are largely ignored and the coverage of the .NET framework is very thin.

If you are an experienced vb developer you really should look for a book with more information on how to leverage your existing knowledge. Look for information on com interop and porting.

The book is written for a VB6 guru who is about to write some new code in VB.NET. It features a decent introduction to what's new in VB.NET and a comprehensive list of changes. The best part of this book is its large reference section, which contains a subset of VB.NET's statements, functions and classes, including comparison to VB6 and potential pitfalls. What I'm missing is instructions how to migrate existing VB6 code to VB.NET. Also, the writer's attitude is a big too positive towards the .NET framework. I would've expected a bit more critical attitude on the numerous, sometimes unnecessary, changes VB.NET seems to present. It takes time to read this book, so I wouldn't call it a nutshell, rather a good reference book.

Just when you though it was time to kick back and enjoy your accomplishment in the VB world, someone would just had to come and messed it up - "So, have you look into VB .NET yet?". Tell you the truth, a few months ago, you would have to drag me kicking-and-screaming to get me in the .NET water with my VB swimsuit! With all the rumor of many changes to VB, the idea of re-learning VB was like decaffeined coffee!

So for me to convert to VB .NET, it has to be quick and painless. And this book did just that. It cuts right through the red tape and gets straight to the core. VB .NET language are explored from A to Z. Aside from being labeled as a language reference, the authors go extra the mile to include dedicated chapters on significant topics in VB .NET that are new to VB such as class inheritant, new datatypes, .NET concept and framework. Not to mention the little details such as tips and gotchas added along side with the reference section which make this book quite enjoyable to read too.

I recommend this book for the VB fan, including those who are reluctant to convert to VB .NET like I was. This book is will ease your transition to VB .NET quickly and efficiently.

Actually what u see in this book is the overview of almost all the topic that usually popup's in our mind, answers to some of the common problem and some amazing facts that surrounds us & we don't know, though there are few lapses but still its the best book to buy if you want a quick reference on any topic

This is a fantastic book to have on your shelf for those times when you simply must know something right this minute. But I don't recommend it as a stand alone source because there are some errors in it (surprising for a 3d edition).

Still, as a general reference, this volume is unsurpassed. On the whole, it rates as "very good" - the scope is broader than any other book of its kind and it's laid out well enougn that it's pretty easy to find the information you want when you need it.

It's PLETHORA. Perhaps you should get a dictionary for your desk.