Used price: $0.92
Collectible price: $2.94
Buy one from zShops for: $1.95
The most satisfying part of the book for me was learning that Clinton's problems are not the result of some "vast right-wing conspiracy". Rather, they are manifestations of Clinton's unresolved childhood problems.
Read this book and you'll be able to make sense of the chaos Clinton creates. One thing is for sure -- it'll take a while to restore the credibility and dignity of the office of president after Clinton leaves, such is the damage done.
Used price: $7.00
Collectible price: $9.25
Buy one from zShops for: $8.00
Used price: $34.65
Buy one from zShops for: $27.49
List price: $21.99 (that's 30% off!)
Used price: $9.00
Buy one from zShops for: $15.29
The position taken by the editors assumes that the words of LDS scholars or even the personal beliefs of the laity may supercede that of the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve. For the average Mormon, truth is contained in the four standard works and the current words of the leaders. When one of the editors, Carl Mosser, says that "evangelical apologists" are "jealously" guarding a type of Mormonism that is not believed by Mormons, I ask if Mosser believes the majority of Mormons would hold to the following beliefs: 1) The idea that "As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become; 2) The idea that temple work is essential to reaching the highest level of the celestial kingdom; 3) The idea that ultimate truth is to be found in the Standard Works as well as the LDS prophet and apostles; 4) The idea that a person must be baptized in the Mormon Church to have an authentic baptismal experience; 5) The idea that Joseph Smith and succeeding church leaders were given complete authority on earth; 6) The idea that the Mormon Church is the most trustworthy church in the world.
The list could go on. The point is that I have no doubt that no less than 80 percent of all Latter-day Saints would immediately agree with me that the above six points as fully being Mormon doctrine. I am not sure why Mosser makes a blanket statement to make it appear that Christians involved with LDS outreaches are making up their own brand of Mormonism-a straw man, so to speak-so they can more easily tear the religion down. This, I believe, is just not accurate.
While the editors would like the Christian community to direct more effort to respond to the scholarly LDS community while paying less attention to the teachings of LDS leaders, they forget one very important point. That is, the Mormon Church is considered to be a restoration of the Christianity that is said to have died soon after the time of the apostles. When Joseph Smith was supposedly given the keys of this authority by Peter, James, John, and even by God the Father and Jesus, it is believed by most Mormons that he was personally given the authority the church lost more than a millennium ago.
Indeed, Smith's own history records that the Christian churches "were all wrong" (Joseph Smith-History 1:19). Succeeding leaders have made it a point to declare that there is no true church on the face of the earth except for the Mormon Church itself. Currently Mormons hold that all authority rests with current LDS President Gordon B. Hinckley, his First Presidency, and the apostles. For a vast majority of Latter-day Saints, what a certain BYU professor or FARMS scholar says does not mean half as much as what President Hinckley says, especially at the general conference.
So my question is why focus on the scholars when most LDS members direct their attention of the Standard Works and LDS leadership? (Strange, but I wonder why the Mormon high school seminary students merely study the Bible, D&C, and Book of Mormon during their four years of study. I don't see them studying "Church Scholars.")
Who is this book intended to reach? Perhaps it was meant as a discussion for the scholars. No doubt it will be a great resource for seminary professors and some pastors. It will probably also be a great asset to Christian apologists.
Yet I just don't see how TNMC-though attracting LDS intellectuals to the table of discussion-will have a wide impact on the general LDS community. I doubt most Mormons will ever even hear of this book, let alone pick it up in their lifetime. It can be safely said that the majority of Mormons are too busy with families, church-related activities, donating their time in church ministry, etc. to even care what the scholars, either Mormon or Christian, declare is truth. The Mormon has a burning in his bosom, and no scholar could ever alter this "fact" regardless of the available evidence.
Its depth will probably confuse many readers who do not have a considerable grasp of the book's technical language related to philosophy, logic, and science. Those Christians who buy TNMC thinking it is a witnessing-tip manual will be sorely disappointed as the arguments will be unintelligible to the average Mormon.
With this being said, I need to temper my criticism by saying there are many important arguments raised in TNMC that will be beneficial for many Christians. The best chapters were 3 (Kalam Argument), 8 (Monotheism and the New Testament), and 10 (Book of Mormon and Ancient Near Eastern Background). As far as recommending this book, I would certainly do so for those who are more learned in the fields of philosophy, theology, and the background of the Mormon Church. However, this is not meant to be a popular book or one that can be easily digested by the majority of Christian and Mormon laity. Thus, for such people, I would think that TNMC will have very little impact since much of the material will sail over their heads. Based on this, each reader needs to make a personal choice...
List price: $26.00 (that's 30% off!)
Used price: $13.76
Buy one from zShops for: $10.95
The book is outlined in such a way that many concepts which are presented by both Jesus and Paul such as the Kingdom of God, the Christian Community, and the essentials elements of who Jesus was and claimed to be, are compared, contrasted and dissected against each other. The result is that the author demonstrates that the absurd theories about Paul being unaware of Jesus life and teachings are unfounded.
It is clear after examining the evidence that Paul was presenting the message of the Gospel, and was in fact a follower of Jesus Christ and not the founder of a new Gnostic religion. If you have heard these theories and are curious, please read this book.
A convincing argument is made that Paul was aware of far more details of Jesus' life than for which he is often credited. Wenham tries to avoid what he calls "parallelomania" which is the overzealousness of some scholars to find connections between Paul and Jesus in places where they don't actually exist. Some skeptics may find Wenham guilty of what he claims to avoid, but I believe the vast majority of his arguments are highly probable.
Wenham groups the connections between Paul and Jesus in degrees of probability. For example, the "highly probable" category includes Paul's knowledge of the Last Supper, resurrection appearances, Jesus' teaching on divorce and others. His next category is simply labelled "probable" and contains such things as Paul's awareness of the baptism of Jesus, the commissioning of Peter, and many more things. He then moves to connections which he considers to be merely "plausible", and believes Paul's awareness of the Sermon on the Mount, parables of the prodigal son and vineyard tenants, among several other items, fall into this category.
By using degrees of probability, I think Wenham safely avoids the charge of "parallelomania". He doesn't use statements such as "Paul must have known X". Instead, he uses terminology like "Paul probably knew X" or "It is very likely that Paul was aware of X". Taken as a cumulative argument, Wenham's case is highly persuasive. The one shortcoming I found with this book was that Wenham fails to adequately interact with those who would say that Paul was the founder of Christianity. Its apparent that Wenham is more than able to meet the task, so my assumption is that he wanted to focus on developing his case without constantly being sidetracked by the need to refute his opponents. If the book is ever revised, it would be great to see him address this issue. Doing so would make this an absolutely perfect book.
List price: $18.00 (that's 30% off!)
Used price: $2.88
Collectible price: $15.88
Buy one from zShops for: $5.20
The possible examples are myriad, but a few will have to serve. Lovinger is weak in English grammar, as illustrated in his entry for "Broadside". He criticizes "A Union Pacific train slammed broadside...into a station wagon..." on the grounds that "unless it leaves its track, a train is not likely to hit anything 'broadside'." This apparently is based on the false belief that an adverb cannot refer to a characteristic of the object of the verb. For example, in "John carefully measured the room" carefulness is a characteristic of John. But in "John measured the room lengthwise" it is the room which is lengthwise, not John. The two constructions can even be combined in one sentence: "John carefully measured the room lengthwise." So Lovinger has implicitly invented a bogus rule of English grammar.
Even when he gives correct information it is often in a very unhelpful way. In the article "Plurals and singulars" he notes, correctly, that "coffee, fruit, silk, steel, tea, wheat, and wool are treated as singular except when different types or varieties are considred; then s is affixes and it becomes plural." This would naturally lead to a discussion of mass and count nouns, but no such discussion is to be found. (He has a discussion elsewhere of collective nouns, but collective nouns are not the same as mass nouns.) These words are listed in the sub-entry of "Creatures; peculiarities". This gives the strong impression that Lovinger thinks that mass nouns are an exception rather than a predictable pattern, and that they are restricted to "creatures". At best the unsuspecting reader has an arbitrary list of words to memorize.
In the quest to find errors to correct Lovinger frequently fails to read what was actually written. In the entry for "Yiddish" there is this:
"A general's autobiography tells of Jamaican family friends 'so close they were considred relatives. 'Mammale and Pappale' we called them. Don't ask me why the Jewish diminutives.' The precise modifier would have been 'Yiddish,' pertaining to the language. 'Jewish' is not a language and not a synonym for 'Yiddish,' although using it that way is a common mistake, rather than a blunder."
Apart from the mysterious distinction between "a common mistake" and "a blunder" everything Lovinger wrote there is true and irrelevant. Nothing in the general's text suggests that he is using "Yiddish" as synonymous with "Jewish". The Yiddish language is a subset of Jewish culture: while not all that is Jewish is Yiddish, that which is Yiddish is Jewish. So it is perfectly accurate to characterize a Yiddish diminutive as being "Jewish". Continuing on with the entry, there is this:
"Later in the book we read 'In Jerusalem my counterpart..., the Israeli chief of staff, threw a party for me, at which I surprised the guests with some Bronx-acquired Yiddish.' Did the general think that Yiddish was the official language of Israel? It is Hebrew."
There is nothing in the quoted text to suggest that the general was at all confused on this point. All that we can infer is that he believed the guests at the party to be surprised by his knowledge of Yiddish. We might suspect that he believed that they would find his knowledge of Yiddish more relevant to them than had he displayed a knowledge of, say, Navajo; he was likely correct in this. The official language of Israel only enters into play in Lovinger's imagination.
Lovinger is pedantic in the way that gives pedantry a bad name. Under "Fantastic" he criticizes an introduction to a performance of a Bach prelude and fugue which "called it a 'fantastic' piece. In the context in which it was used, the word could have meant charteristic of a fantasia." Who is going to be confused by this? The listener unfamiliar with musical forms will not make the association and so will correctly interpret the adjective. The listener familiar with musical forms knows that a fugue is completely unlike a fantasia, and so will correctly interpret the adjective. The only listener who will be confused is the one working his way through the music dictionary and currently midway through the letter "f".
Next is the truly offensive aspect of the book. The mandate of a usage manual is to advise the reader how to express thoughts well. There is a fine line between this and the manual advising the reader which thoughts ought or ought not be expressed. Lovinger blithely crosses this line without looking back. Under "Daring" he criticizes a news report of "a daring escape from a medium-security facility" on the grounds that "'daring' is a word of praise; it commends one's adventurousness, initiative, boldness, and fearlessness in a risky endeavor....a beter [adjective] would have been 'brazen' or 'imitative'. (The method of escape, by helicopter, had been used before and, still earlier, portrayed in a movie.)" There is no pretense of providing a better way of expressing the thought. Rather, this is a blatant attempt at crude censorship.
Here is one last example, illustrating Lovinger's tin ear and propensity for making up rules. Under "Zero and O" we are told that the number should not be pronounced "oh" but rather is "zero" or "cipher" or "naught". The "oh" pronunciation has been perfectly standard English for the past four centuries, so far as I can tell without evoking complaint. Lovinger criticizes an announcer for pronouncing the numbers in the television program "Beverly Hills 90210" as "nine oh two one oh." Umm.... Yeah, right.
The reader who wants a recent collection of standard conservative usage manual opinion would do much better with Bryan Garner's "Dictionary of Modern American Usage". The reader unafraid to confront actual evidence even if it might contradict the received wisdom should get "Merriam Webster's Dictionary of English Usage." The Penguin Dictionary should be avoided except as a curiosity.
Reference books don't usually serve as bedtime reading or the topic of controversy. Here is an exception. "The Penguin Dictionary of American English Usage and Style," by Paul W. Lovinger, is unusually readable and thought-provoking for a book labeled "dictionary."
It clashes with those lexicographers and theorists who contend that speakers of a language cannot go wrong, that many verbal wrongs make a right. Examples of those wrongs are the use of "infer" instead of "imply," and "flaunt" instead of "flout," which some dictionaries accept. In an introductory section headed "Save the Language," it borrows the rhetoric of the environmental movement to warn that English is losing indispensable words because of misuse.
The Penguin Dictionary disavows purism or pedantry--for instance, it does not flatly condemn split infinitives or ending sentences with prepositions. "But it does value precision over fashion, logic over illogic, and grammatical correctness over 'political correctness'" (from the introduction). A good example is from the book's discussion of pronouns and number: Drawing from the abortion controversy, it quotes an advocate of "an individual's right to make a choice about their individual lives"--instead of "her individual life." Comment: "Having erroneously associated 'individual' with 'their,' the speaker proceeded to give that individual a number of 'lives.'" The quotation, incidentally, is one of some 2,000 in the book.
(The count excludes made-up examples, the introduction says-- contrary to the intimation of a reader. He wants the book to be fatter and include a list of sources. That would increase its price but not its usefulness. It has over 500 pages, with the front matter. By the way, another reader condemns the whole book because he disagrees with a statement under "reason, 2." But that sub-entry presents differing views, and most readers should find it reasonable and balanced.)
In exceptionally clear language, this A-Z guide to good English explains principles of grammar and style (such as the parts of speech, active and passive voice, infinitives, modifiers, plurals, punctuation, and tense). It deals with distinctive words that are often misused (e.g., alibi, bemuse, connive, desecrate, dilemma, fortuitous, idyllic, literally, transpire, and unique) and confusing pairs (e.g., can-may, disinterested-uninterested, emigrate-immigrate, eminent-imminent, masterful-masterly, may-might, nauseated-nauseous, prescribe-proscribe, respectable-respectful, that-which, and perhaps the biggest puzzle: who-whom).
Some of Lovinger's entry topics--like Fowler's--are quirky: anachronisms, backward writing, cliché clash, dehumanization, guilt and innocence, joining of words, metaphoric contradiction, quotation problems, range (true and false), reversal of meaning, series errors, synonymic silliness, and verbal unmentionables.
The only objection I have is to the title of "The Penguin Dictionary of American English Usage and Style," a mouthful that does not do justice to the liveliness of this volume and could fool people into mistaking it for some stuffy tome on a reference shelf. Humor is sprinkled throughout the book. In an entry on mixed-up clichés, a TV panelist is quoted: "We really have no evidence that Bill Clinton is going to step up to the plate...and really take the bull by the horns." The author comments that maybe the president would have been inspired by a rousing chorus of "Take Me Out to the Bullfight."
Used price: $11.14
Buy one from zShops for: $11.14
Fortunately, free markets are stable; they only destabilize when the government intervenes. No neo-classical "economist" understands this, and mathematicians certainly don't (see review
below). The only economic school that describes the real world
is the Austrian school; they are of course are taught in very, very few colleges. Government interference has never worked, and it
never will. And Samuelson got a Nobel Prize? You might as well give me one, too.
As text or as literature, this book is terribly written. Unsystematic, like a hodgepodge of review articles. Samuelson has noted that economists (like Galbraith) who write too well may be suspect by other economists, but this is an unfortunate viewpoint. The best writing is done by the clearest thinkers: Einstein (in both German and English), Feynman, V.I. Arnol'd, and Fischer Black are examples. Bad writing, in contrast, often reflects sloppy thinking. In short, this text could have been cut to half it's size, to the benefit of the reader who wants to understand what Samuelson has to say.
For the story of how neo-classical econ won out academically, see Mirowski's 'Machine Dreams'.
The reader of the book is not college student but postgraduate.
The publisher in China have translated and published the textbook for above 4 times, The lasted one in 16th edition.
i am a editor.
who can help me that i want to know the top 10 or 20 business textbook in the world? it's including Economics?
liuhui@wise-link.com
List price: $16.95 (that's 30% off!)
Used price: $9.00
Collectible price: $15.88
Buy one from zShops for: $11.12
The church has no kneelers, so nobody kneels. The Tabenacle which houses our Lord's body has been shunted
off to a side chapel! Pita bread is used for Communion and,
if you walked in to the Church, you'd never guess it was a Catholic Church. There is nothing adorning it's walls. No Stations of the Cross, no nothing. Not real orthodox stuff.
Word of mouth and trial and error are better guides.
In fact, I have been to three of these "excellent" parishes and can assure you that they are simply hyped parishes who at one time or another had a charismatic pastor. They are the flavor of the month, and in a few years will look as faddishly ridiculous as afros or SUVs.
St. Mary Magdalen in Florida, where I grew up, is now a parish ruled by a "lay-ocracy" of parishioners, typically wealthy, who push through their own programs at the expense of less influential members. They recently raised money to renovate their 25 year old chuch, but wealthy members convinced a weak pastor to spend the money on a gymnasium instead. A product of central Florida's explosive growth, they will be saddled with brick-and-mortar monuments in years to come.
Old St. Pat's in Chicago prides itself on a celebration of diversity and ecumenism. One Holy Week, the pastor and his parishioner confidantes decided to cancel the Holy Thursday liturgy in favor of a Seder--limited seating (100 people) at $20 a head. Most parishioners were excluded from a celebration of one of Catholicism's most solemn liturgies. Fortunately, Cardinal Bernardin had a proper liturgy in the cathedral not far from good old Pat's.
Santa Monica in California is a touchy, feel-good church with a dynamic pastor, lots of wealthy parishioners (then-Mayor Riordan donated $1 million to repair a bell tower damaged in an earthquake), and enough film stars in attendance to rival Spago's. In the country's largest diocese, it offers good liturgies and an involved community that is unrivaled by other Los Angeles parishes; the diocese has no commitment to liturgy, so anything rising a few inches above the ruck is bound to be considered "excellent."
Mr. Wilke would do better to look at the true nature of his parishes, which may not have been possible in his short stays. The diamond may shine on first look, but closer examination shows a diry black core.
List price: $17.95 (that's 30% off!)
Used price: $5.00
Buy one from zShops for: $7.45
I am no Middle East expert and I do not know who is right and who is wrong in the conflict - but in any event, I do not want my guidebook to preach to me. I buy guidebooks for travel, accommodation, eating and sightseeing information - and this part is only so-so. The guide has some helpful info (for example, about passport stamps and about beating the bureaucratic system - or at least minimizing its impact). The book has not been researched sufficiently and choices of hotels, for example, often feel they have been picked at random.
There is one thing you realize after reading about a dozen Lonely Planet guides: a very large part of the book is actually cut and pasted from one book to another. When you are paying for a Lonely Planet guide, you are paying for much less particular destination information than you imagine: there are pages and pages of generalities of no practical relevance. Why insult intelligence of a reader with gems such as "pack as little as possible but take everything you need"? I can think of no other reason but to artificially increase the volume of the book so it seems a better value for money.
As usual, information about "Getting there" is very, very poor. Same tired "advice" about buying tickets from discount travel agents (and you thought about buying them from your dry-cleaners, didn't you?), same behind-the-times feeling when it comes to internet (although now there is a reluctantly compiled list of travel sites, which conveniently excludes some of the biggest and the most helpful on-line travel agents, to which the authors are presumably opposed on ideological grounds).
Where sightseeing is concerned, the guide lack focus, descriptions are uninspired and don't feel particularly tempting.
There are many other guides to Israel, take your pick - but Lonely Planet is best left on the shelf, unless of course you want to have a full collection.
However, I have to disagree with avalonwitch and agree with alfassa; the pro-Palestinian (or anti-Israeli; pick your poison) bias in this book is very strong and pervasive. Right from the beginning, one notices things such as the fact that B.C. and A.D. are used, rather than the Jewish or Muslim equivalents (or the widely-accepted B.C.E. and C.E.) There's a sidebar swipe at the Mossad, for example, that concentrates on their "bungles" (of which there are, of course, some) rather than such successes as the detection of the Iraqi nuclear reactor, the successful capture of Nazi war-criminals, and so on. This attitude is all through the book.
That said, there's some good stuff here. I just wish Lonely Planet's editors could have been more even-handed. After all, while Israel has certainly done some things that are pretty awful (e.g., Lebannon), the Palestinians aren't exactly free of blame, either (e.g., strapping bombs to themselves and going to discos to blow themselves up). An even-handed approach would have made this another excellent Lonely Planets guidebook.
It is unprofessional and ridiculous that a writer would attempt a book as this one and claim "professionalism." Although Fick did put in his disclaimer that he never saw "the patient;" he failed to disclose that his real purpose in writing The Dysfunctional President was to make money selling the book.
The former president certainly disappointed us, but more disappointing was the highly educated American People letting themselves be swept away emotionally in a media morality play. Fick, playing up to this, saw a way to make money while public interest in the whole affair has been waning.
I found the book presenting misguided aspects of the Diagnostic and Statistics Manual. All too often, these played with by folk playing "blaming others." In Fick's writing, out of context descriptions of human behavior filled the pages of a book that purports to educate. The work reads as the verbiage of "failed twelve-steppers,"while giving energy to detractors of Bill Clinton. This kind of analysis is really masturbating on a mental plane opposite that on an official plane. Sorry Fick, though I read your writing, I didn't buy it or buy into it. Your work only encourages people Clinton haters and those who imagine themselves expert in a serious profession that should be left to serious professionals.