I bought this book because there are so few books written about Angola in English. It is both a delight and a huge disappointment. Granted, Hare concentrates on one topic only - his very valuable experience of 'peace' making in Angola. To this extent, the book is a very useful 'fact-checker' for anyone working in or on Angolan issues today. He provides a chronology of events of the negotiations for Lusaka that is written clearly and concisely. It is probably a good enough guide for a student of African affairs or international relations. However, for anyone who has lived or worked in Angola, it comes close to pure entertainment at times. His book reveals how narrow-minded Western diplomats and politicians can be when they are dealing with a region outside their own cultural boundary. He unwittingly shows how little he understands about the people of Angola, let alone their leaders such as Jonas Savimbi, UNITA's leader. Quoting phrases from his diary, Hare's analyses of why Savimbi behaved in a certain way or other serve to reveal how Hare failed to look at the Angolan crisis from any view other than his own. I have heard this book described as 'laughably bad' and as a 'perfect example of how the Americans get it wrong in Africa'. These are indeed perceptive comments. I would advise anyone interested in Angola today to read this, preferably with a few Angolans at hand to point out the absurd cultural assumptions that Hare shamelessly commits.

Mediation is harder work than the mainstream media is able (or at least willing) to let on. For that reason, a book like this is an invaluable resource for anyone thinking of a career in diplomacy. Historically speaking, Hare's book is outdated, since peace has come, gone, and come again in Angola since it was published in 1998. Nonetheless, it's a valuable study of a crucial period in the country's long road to recovery from civil war, from the perspective of a participant who had an almost-inside view of both camps in the dispute. I'm persuaded that the Angolan reviewers above have a point, that Hare is too much of an outsider to have a complete appreciation of what their country went through. What he does provide completely, though, is an insider's look at the realities of American diplomacy, how it works, and why it doesn't always work quickly. It's a great case study of a difficult case, valuable to students of both African and American politics.

Angola, still in the midst of a decades-long battle when Hare's work began, is a good example of the ultimate challenge in that field. Hare's style is a bit dry, but his accounts of the two steps up, one step back peace process is refreshingly straightforward and devoid of political spin, to a degree that has been almost unthinkable in America for quite some time now. Although Hare shows no sign of any political agenda beyond that dictated by his job, this study gives the lie to any argument that the Clinton administration's interest in Africa began and ended with Somalia or that it was inept on the international stage. The leaders of both sides of the conflict are presented in a surprisingly reasonable light given the circumstances, and Hare at least tries to account for the convoluted political lay of the land as the war appeared to draw to a conclusion. Some previous familiarity with recent Angolan history is certainly helpful in understanding the story, but all the basics are here. It ends on an appropriately uncertain note, but events since the end of Hare's account have demonstrated that the efforts weren't wasted.

why does it take so long to get such a good book

90% of this book is great in examining the mindset of the anti-semite and the Jew that wants to assimilate but can't because of the anti-semite. Sartre is brilliant when he talks about the anti-semite's passion for the Jew (which explains why many anti-semites from Farrakhan to Christian Identity movements call themselves "the real Jews"), the assimilated Jew's overcompensation, the historical roots of anti-semitism, and the liberal democrat's damaging and weak defense of Jews on the basis of their common humanity at the expense of their Judaism (As the Napoleaonic position stated = "To the Jew as a man everything, to the Jew as a nation nothing").

Where the book fails is when Sartre tries to gauge the mindset of the Jew that doesn't want to assimilate and the mindset of the Jewish people as a whole. He claims that society makes Jews Jewish and that there is neither a national nor a religious identity holding them together. This was before Israel was a fact of life and when many Jews wanted to assimilate without a trace of guilt over the fact. Most of the Jews that he knows aren't particularly fond of the religious dimension of their lives and he reflects that. He is also erroneous when he characterizes an "authentic" Jew as someone who has thrown off universalism. Judaism believes in universalism but not at the expense of Chosen People status. Of course, what Sartre sees as a problem - Jews trying to assimilate but being pushed into being Jewish, Judaism sees as evidence of being a Chosen People.

Sartre's ignorance about religious Judaism aside, this is still an excellent book in the cause of multiculturalism and pluralism. He argue that ultimately anti-semitism is not a Jewish problem but a problem in his native France and that as long as anti-Semitism exists, no one is secure. He takes 150 pages to make the argument and some of the roads he takes to get there are questionable but it's still an excellent book in that respect.

Which came first: the anti-gentile or the anti-semite?
A semite is a racial type: kinky hair, aquiline nose, olive complexion.

The Arabs and Jews both are Semites, while many converts to Judaism are blond straight-haired, pug nosed people.

Sarte's book is confusing.

The so-called anti-semite is a figment of the imagination of Sartre, Freud, and others like them. The philosophy of Judaism is based on the Law of Moses, which designates the Israelites as the Chosen people, with the Moses-given right to enslave the other nations of the world, as is clearly revealed in Leviticus 25:43-45.

Today, such a philosophy endorsing ethnic supremacy (which is the real meaning of Chosenness) would very appropriately be designated fascism.

Sartre's Anti-Semite & Jew is an exercise in what I would call Jewish paranoia, which in my opinion is a mask to conceal
the Anti-Gentilism of the Jew! It is sort of an exercise in what Freud himself called "projection," an ego defense mechanism in which one attributes one's own unacceptable impulses or attitudes to others.

And as other scholars have already said, Sartre shows a blatant inability to comprehend the psychodynamics of the Jewish religion and of Jewish history. To use his own term, "bad faith," Anti-Semite & Jew is indeed an exercise in bad faith.

"Bad Faith" is when one lies to one's self about the true nature of one's actions.

Sartre borrowed the concepts of "authentic" and "inauthentic" from Martin Heidegger. Interestingly, Heidegger was both a German and a Nazi, and Heidegger used the term to describe working class German workers who were exploited by industrial-capitalists and bankers. However, Sartre use of the words is in my opinion inappropriate. In other words, the Jew's problem is that he refuses to accept the FACT that it is his identity with an implicitly fascist social-political philosophy that understandably provokes the mistrust of others.

The problem for the Jew is that he wants to have his cake and eat it to.

Doherty knows how to plot a mystery and convey his setting but as a reader familiar with the history and culture of ancient Egypt, and particularly with the period of Hatshepsut, I found myself constantly distracted by inaccuracies. There's a carelessness with names and titles of historical figures. I can live with his use of Hatasu instead of the more usual Hatshepsut, however Hatshepsut's favorite, Senenmut, who figures prominently in the series, held over the course of his long and extravagently honored life something like 80 titles. He was never, however, Hatshepsut's Vizier, his principle title in the series. For another example there is a climactic scene in which the hero, Chief Judge Amerotke, confronts and captures a group of tomb robbers--the problem is the tomb robbers are riding camels. The camel was not introduced into Egypt until several hundred years after the time this story takes place. A bronze key plays a major role in the plot but (and I could be wrong on this) the Egyptians in the 18th dynasty relied on seals to keep their valuables safe. Locks as we know them hadn't been invented.

This is a shame because on the whole this is a good story in a fun series complete with an interesting take on the historical events and characters. I hate to sound like a pendantic prig--I really like historical mysteries and am willing to overlook a few howlers and anachronisms if the story's good, but in this case the factual errors really distracted from my enjoyment of the book.

I hope the author's listening.

I have always been intrigued by Egypt and it's history. Must come from my Dad who is an archaelogical enthusiast especially for the Middle East. Anyway, I really enjoyed finding a new author within this particular subfield of mysteries. I don't have enough background in ancient Egypt to be critical of the names or historical useage of the time period. For the most part the book was very readable, and fun, if a bit on the bloody side. I wonder if Egypt was always that dismissive of the value of a human life. I surmise that they were since the Pharoahs had no problems with using servants and slaves to build their great tombs, and then killed all of those people. That attitude must have filtered down to everyone eventually. It's amazing that this 'civilization' lasted as long as it did, when they were so uncivilized!

My only complaint about the book has to do with the author's continued use of the word 'retorted'. No one 'retorts' that much!!! Because the author used a lot of conversations to convey the story, he constantly used "he said", "she stated", and the word "retorted" seemed to be every other one. Get a thesaurus, PLEASE! Or read some more grammar books about how to write conversations. This is not just the author's fault...editors should be looking for this type of problem and making suggestions. Sounds like nitpicking on my part, but I will stop reading books and especially series, if the language is not up to par (even if the history is ok).

Otherwise, I enjoyed learning more about the time period. I hope the author is doing his research so I don't get misinformation about that particular part of world history.

Karen Sadler

As an enthusiast (not archeologist) of Ancient Egypt, I find that all of his books make Ancient Egypt come alive, as if you are really there. I don't particularly care if camels weren't introduced at that time or locks hadn't been invented yet. I don't want a history lesson, I want a book/story which you can picture yourself being alongside the characters. Paul's books have done that.
His mediaeval series with Brother Athlestan are also fantastic too. I always eagerly await the next one.....

I like Kerouac and I thought it would be interesting to read a book of his early attempts at writing, but this book turned out to be a heap of garbage that would never have gotten published if there wasn't a famous name and picture on the cover. Even Kerouac himself said this stuff wasn't worth reading. I'm surprised they didn't print his grocery lists and the doodles he scribled on napkins. They must be saving that for the next book, "Things we collected from Kerouac's waste basket." This sort of thing happens all the time and its sad... Anyway, I gave this book an extra star because I seem to remember at least one or two of the pieces being at least mildly interesting. I don't recall which ones.

Jack Kerouac, with the printing of larger title books (On the Road, Dharma Bums, Desolation Angels...) gained a reputation as the "king" or "father" of the beatniks. A title and position that Kerouac never wanted or ever really accepted. Amidst the caucophenous roar of America in the night with drugs and sex and bachnallian carnality, Kerouac recieved a bad rap as the inventor or sponsor of such activities. While in his life Kerouac did partake in many such things, he was original and utterly different than the dull literary and social scene surrounding he and his friends. Atop an Underwood, I believe, takes us back to when Kerouac was at possibly the height of his burgeoning fascination with the world and those who inhabited it. With prose and poetry alike, Jack allows us into a younger and more lucid, albeit less experienced mind. This book lets us plainly see what Kerouac truly wanted for his life and what he deemed of great enough import to spend so many years perfecting. A very important collection for anyone serious about not only Kerouac the writer, but Kerouac the man.

Use Paul Marion's Jack Kerouac Atop An Underwood (88822-2, $24.95) as an accompanying volume surveying his early stories and other writings: this gathers over sixty previously unpublished pieces from Kerouac's personal files and represents a treasure trove for any avid Kerouac reader. Both are highly recommended, even essential picks for any Beat collection.

The story is a rather straightforward telling of gang murders and Batman solving the crimes. Some violence, but little complexity. I apologize for the mediocre rating -- it reflects my personal tastes but doesn't lessen the fact that I'd recommend this to Batman fans and fans of the medium. Grant Morrison writes a tight plot here, but there's really nothing new. As for the art, Klaus Janson has a jerky, rough style, but I really admire his composition if not his rendering. I had him as an instructor for graphic storytelling, and this guy really has depth to his storytelling -- every pane is a thoughtful and complex solution to a communication problem. Also - an inside scoop - in one of the panes, Batman appears with 6 fingers!

I personally consider the earlier stories in the "Legends of the Dark Knight" ongoing series the better ones, and this one (which collects #6-10) is no exception. Bruce Wayne is being plagued by a lot of nightmares about when he was a young boy lately. Each night he wakes up from a nightmare about his father to which he can relate no meaning. Meanwhile a man who calls himself 'Mr.Whisper', a man with no shadow, is rapidly killing off underworld members in brutal ways. The crime-leaders are heavily frightened and ask Batman for help, trying to make a deal. Batman refuses and tells them they're getting what they deserve. Back home he puts some things together for himself and realizes there may be a connection between Mr.Whisper and his nightmares. Because of that he decides to do some detective work after all to find out who this Mr.Whisper is. From there on a highly paranormal (which is quite extraordinary for a Batman book, but quite a trademark of Grant Morisson) story unfolds which leads Batman through memories of his days in private school and even to an eerie Austrian monastry, which he learns is the subject of an occult Austrian legend.

People who are into listening to scary 'true' stories by the campfire will probably like this a lot. It's like one of those stories you heard of which you just KNEW they weren't real, but gave you the chills anyway. That's also the case here. You go through the story asking yourself if what's going on is the legend being forfilled or if there's a more down-to-earth thing going on. Grant Morisson does what he does best, he's giving clues without giving it away, keeping the reader on his toes. Klaus Jansons art is suitable for the story and especially the way he draws the architectural backgrounds deserve some credit. I don't think many people who are into Batman comics will feel disappointed after reading this.

I'm a huge fan of all of Grant Morrison's work, from Zenith to the Invisibles. His work will make you think in a way that you never have before. If you're a fan of his work like I am, you should check out Brian Caldwell's novel, We All Fall Down. It's the Biblical Apocalypse done right- full of sex and violence and an angry young man who smokes and swears too much. I mention all of this here because the Antichrist in the novel has the peculiar name of Richard Grant Morrison, and when he begins talking about how humanity has to realize that they are five demensional creatures growing in the soil of space/time, you'll realize that that name isn't a coincedence. Check it out after you've read all of Grant's stuff.

Clifton Blue Parker hits a homerun with this book on the Waners. Parker does a great job telling the story of the Waner brothers and has a wonderful use of quotes from both brothers throughout the text. He frequently uses unpublished materials from Lawrence Ritter's The Glory of Their Times interview with Paul Waner.

Much like one of the other reviewers, I read through this book quickly. An absolute must for Pittsburgh Pirate fans!!!

P.S. - The only historical error of significance is that Parker is not familiar with the 1934 Goudey baseball card set.

Magnificient -- I read this book in two days flat. It's written beautifully with deep attention to the cultural history of baseball in the '20s and '30s.

Parker is a lively and engaging writer who also knows his subject matter as well as anybody I've come across in a long time. The Waners are two of the most overlooked Hall of Famers who played during baseball's most colorful era. Both the details and the historical context help set the record straight about the Pirates and the Waners. Few know, for example, that Paul Waner holds the record for extra base hits in consecutive games. It's much more than statistics and records. This book is about people and history. Through many anecdotes, interviews and tons of old newspaper and magazine clippings, we learn who Paul and Lloyd Waner are and how this game was played back then.

It's this kind of detail that makes this book a swift and enjoyable read.

I'm not sure what the prior reviewer was talking about -- actually Parker quotes another writer that 1 in 10 ballplayers had SOME connection to Oklahoma (he never says "from" only "passed through"), as defined by being born there, living there, going to school there, playing in the minors or college there. (Read "Glory Days" by Royse Parr et al -- that's the author Parker quoted.) It's common knowledge that the Dean brothers lived in Oklahoma as well as Texas and Arkansas at various points in their lives, that Carl Hubbell went to high school in Oklahoma near the Waners, that Warren Spahn retired to a large ranch in Oklahoma, etc. So what's the big deal? As a reader, I'm glad Parker went to the trouble to give us the full story and everything I read was thoughtfully done. Excellent job!

This rabbi demonstrates what happens when Judaism is created by popular vote. No more commandments, no more tradition, no more loyalty; now we get suggestions, whats in, and dedication to what liberals want today. Even the spirited, interesting and clever drawings can't save this version of judaism-lite. Serious students of Judaism should look elsewhere for meaningful religion. The book reads like a boring dose of pool side chatter.Pass over this pampered, country club approach to Almighty G-d.

Rabbi Tufts makes it easy to be Jewish. This book makes me feel good about being a liberal Jew. It seems to me that the G-d wants us to be inventivee and creative. Tufts is a warm and gentle human being. The Paul Palnik drawings are interesting and happy. This is not a dotti (orthodox) approach to Judaism. That is why I like it. My brother likes it too.

This book was read as a religious school assignment by my whole class. We loved the quirky and delightful drawings and our group particularly liked the illustration of a rabbi flying off the page and out of the book. The author's suggestions on what it means to be a spiritual person are interesting and enlightening. Rabbi Tufts seems to encourage an almost effeminate approach to male spirituality that several of us found disturbing. Our class discussed the difference between accepting the femenine side to our male personalities and becoming a whimp. This book sparked much discussion and debate. Our religious studies class was not boring for a change.

I first read this series when it came out in the late 1980's. They are highly entertaining and among my favorite books, it is high time they got a second printing. This third installment which takes us to Mars is as enjoyable as the rest, though my favorite is the second installment, "Maelstrom".

Over the years I've had a lot of fun with Sparta and "The Free Spirit". I just wish I knew how to get my hands on one of those "Snark" attack helicopters. Ellen Troy and Blake Redfield are captivating heros, who like the rest of us, have their flaws. Any Clarke faithful who doesn't enjoy this series might want to think about going one size larger the next time they buy new skivvies.

Anyone who enjoys this and other "Venus Prime" novels should look for "Core", another enjoyable work by Preuss. (For anyone who's curious, the origional names for the Venus Prime books are "The Breaking Strain", "Maelstrom", "Hide and Seek", "The Medusa Encounter", "The Diamond Moon", and "The Shining Ones" respectively.)

I don't think Paul Preuss is attemting to take Clark's place in science fiction history. The three installments thus far of Venus Prime are clever and enjoyable mysteries. The books are well written (if not carefully edited - Clark's intro in the second book refers to the first manned orbit of the moon by Apollo 8 Christmas 1969 - AFTER the first moon landing) and fun to read. Enjoy them for what they are, and leave the comparisons to 2001 out of the experience.

preuss captures clarke's tone and complexity--a nice entry in a superior series

Dr. Sears is the acknowledged leader in the attachment parenting movement, with many well-received books to his name. Like his other titles, _Becoming a Father_ emphasizes early bonding, positive discipline, and respect for the child's physical and emotional needs. To the extent that all fathers need to hear this message, this is an excellent book. So why the low rating? Because despite his child-positive message, Dr. Sears is caught in a time warp when it comes to models of masculinity. Underlying his arguments for an active role for fathers are assumptions that this reader found frustratingly rigid and occasionally downright offensive. An example:

"The growing child should see that important family matters require a mutual decision-making process that involves both mom and dad, but I believe that dad is primarily responsible for making decisions." (p. 194)

Even more troubling is the author's attitude toward homosexuality, which seems to be informed more by conservative religious values than by current medical knowledge:

"'I don't want my son to grow up to be a pansy,' exclaimed John, a new father. His sentiments are shared by most men." (p. 200)

For those readers who aren't already aware of the meaning--or should I say "demeaning"?--of this slur, Dr. Sears goes on to define a "pansy" as "an effeminate boy." Given the author's 1950s-style ideas of masculinity, I'd hate to think how he would judge a boy who, after watching his father wearing a younger sibling in a sling, asked for a doll to play with. He concludes:

"I am personally concerned that our society tends to approve of lifestyles [sic!] such as homosexuality. Society sees this as an 'acceptable alternative.' I can accept a person as a homosexual without having to approve of the morality of homosexuality." (p. 208)

If this "love the sinner, hate the sin" attitude reflects your own beliefs, you will probably get a lot out of this book. But if you take a more egalitarian view of male-female relationships and don't believe--and most mainstream doctors do not--that weak paternal role models "cause" homosexuality, you may want to look elsewhere for advice on fathering. To be fair, there is much of value in this book, but the truly helpful ideas can be gleaned from Sears's array of other works (such as _The Baby Book_) or from other attachment parenting guides, like Katie Granju's _Attachment Parenting_.

Yes indeed. Why? I do not know. But, my husband read this book cover to cover. It was the ONLY book he read to prepare for the birth of our daughter.

His issue, and mine, has a lot to do with Dr. Sears' consistently characterizing Dad as "helper", someone secondary in importance to Mom and incapable of being motherly.

His writing style is kind of folksy if you like that.

If you are really liberal and politically correct,you will not appreciate this book or this man for that reason and for the way
you may perceive his views on gender identity and development in children.

If words like conservative, traditional are anathema to you, leave the book on the shelf.

I enjoyed reading the book. I have used many of the ideas from Dr. Sears book to raise my two children. I own five other fathering books but this is by far the best and most practical one.

Lets face it, there is little support or literature for fathering. I think society expects men to raise their children just like our dads did. Most of the available fathering literature is written by men with one or two children and psychology degrees. Dr. Sears has six kids and is a busy pediatrician.

Especially if you are a first time father, do your child a favor. Buy and read this book.

One star may be a little low, but I get the feeling the other reviews came from the author's relatives. Since I bought the book based on the five star rating, I feel the need to balance them out.

First off, the book has an appeal. If you've ever been in high pressure sales- insurance, auto, etc.- you'll love the way this author captures the pressure of these jobs. The first of the novel is great in this regard and the story itself has a good premise.

But I was unable to finish the book because of the writing itself. I get the feeling that the book was vanity published by a rich business man. The writing itself gets very redundant and is shot through with cliches. It also occasionaly switches from active to passive tense. In some books this works. In this case it pulled me out of the story.

As much as I respect the author for doing it on his own, I must say that he should've sprung for a good editor as well as the publishing.

This easy to read novel will take you on journey and into a world you've never experienced before. The author has an ability to fully visualize this story for you. You are there! You feel the pain of poor Frank Granstino as he battles with the demons within and out.
This story will move you. It is a very simple read - in this complex world we live in. Escape, and enjoy.
Bravo - John Paul Carinci. I look forward to your latest: "A Second Chance"

BEING VERY PICKY OF WHAT I READ, BETTER OFF DEAD WAS THE BEST BOOK IVE EVER READ. YOU WONT BE ABLE TO PUT IT DOWN! IT IS EXCITING, DRAMATIC WITH A SENSE OF HUMOR. ITS NOT ONE OF YOUR EVERY DAY AVERAGE MAFIA STORY. IT IS CERTAINLY DIFFERENT AND INTERESTING. THUMBS UP!