As a Christian who has studied math and philosophy, I am quite familiar with Bertrand Russell's contributions to logic and philosophy, I am quite impressed with his brilliance. When I first got this book, I was afraid of what kind of powerful arguments he might present against my beliefs, instead I was shocked to find his arguments poorly constructed, his premises, shoddy, his logic full of holes. I expect much better from a man of his genius. It is quite obvious that his atheism wasn't based on a reasoned analysis of philosophy, a rigorous deduction from the evidence, rather, it was the result of a strong emotional bias against Christian ethics, particularly sexual ethics, period. A disappointment through and through. Whether you are atheist or theist, if you are looking for a good, through, reasoned arguments against God, you should look elsewhere than the writing of Bertrand Russell.

It appears in these selections that Russell was a very complex person who thought a great deal about religion. His views are not always consistent and they are pervaded by emotion. His general tendency is against religion. He especially hates Christianity as it has been practiced throughout history and the idea of Christian faith. He takes faith to be a set of related beliefs, on substantial issues, for which one has no good reasons. This selection is light reading, but it is too unfair to be used as an introduction to the philosophy of religion. Of course, this is one of the features of Russell's thought on religion that makes him psychologically interesting.

After reading 'Why I am not a christian', I was excited to find that there existed an even larger collection of Mr. Russells essays. Some of the essays in this book are already in 'Why I am not a christian', including that particular essay. The others I had not read before were informative, well-structured, and balanced. He was truly a man ahead of his time.

this book was full of words that are no longer used. Basically, I would NOT recommend this book. It was very dry and hard to follow, in other words, boring.

Okay,what I love about this book is the totally cool magic that everyone wants! I have it I put my friend on a spell with this totally awesome book!

the bookwas really good. i suggest that if you are having a relantionship problems, BUY IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Primarily because this book is too basic. Any claims by the author to reply back to email*s* (again, emails, not one!) have been false.

Please don't write any such books just to rip us off... please!

I made a mistake buying Graphics Programming with JFC ... the book is not bad but it's extremely superficial.If you need something more deep than opening an Image File you should look for something different (I haven't found yet...).

It says it covers the 2D and 3D APIs. However, as near as I can tell, it covers the Java 2D API in much detail. Then it covers how to do 3D using the 2D API, but never covers the 3D API directly. This is still useful because any 3D API will make certain tradeoffs and if the tradeoffs don't match your needs, you might have to implement your own 3D API using the 2D API.

The book is very heavy on code examples. Each section seems to have an introduction, a code example, and then commentary on the code example. However, I think the book would be better with more text to go with the code.

While I don't think the strength of this book is the cover-to-cover readability, I think it is an excellent reference resource. If you are trying to do a particular graphical task, you can just look it up and there will be a code example there waiting for you, which is enormously useful.

A.E. Waite could have spend his time better than translating this "French masterpiece". As always Eliphas Levi is ill-informed and doesn't care much about facts. The book is full of factual errors and Alphonse Louis Constant shapes history as it suits him. This doubtful "History of Magic" is therefore only interesting for uncritical followers of the master, reseachers who specialize in the history of occultism in the nineteenth century or for experts on the history of magic in general who can make distinctions between facts and non-sense. It is more or less misleading to rate this book five stars.

We are all intruigued by the mysteries of magic. But this book makes the most preposterous claims about magic, ritual, history and god knows what else, that I have ever seen. Far from the claim (in a review below) of his "empiricism," Levi does not seem to have been in the least informed by the sciences of his day. The real mystery is why the great esotericsit A.E. Waite bothered to translate it from the French at all. Need an example? India is described as "the Mother of all heresies" [laughable, were it not so pathetic an example of judeochristian resentiment]. And he seriously believes that the the books of the Old Testament describe the literal anthropology & history of the peoples of the Mideast, Ishmael=Islam and all the rest [fundamentalism so naive it would make a Trent Lott blush!]. The book's organization reflects the author's romance with Quaballah, but the chapters themselves are random collections of "ideas" on topics unrelated to the chapter titles [a stream-of-consciousness style the anticipated the great Joyce by half a century, albeit to no effect, aesthetic or otherwise]. The single high point of the book is Levi's description of spiritual love: "The true man elevates himself not by trying to possess the object of his desire but by raising himself to Her through devotion" [its a pity he didn't know anything about Sufism or the key difference between magic and devotion]. Try Israel Regardie instead, who is at least steeped in Renaissance memory training, neo-Platonism and other worthies. Remember that it is but a small (backwards) step that separates dog from god.

Eliphas Levi's "History of Magic" is probably the most singularly beautiful, profoundly romantic and Personal rendering of the history of Magic ever penned. It is as much a sourcebook for the Symbolist/Decadent fin-de-siecle generation as is Baudelaire's Flowers of Evil & Paris Spleen, and ironically, Levi collaborated with Baudelaire on the work entitled:"Les Mysteres Galants".(webb. Occult Underground,266) It is essential to grasp when involved in such a historical treatise as this, that in Occultism, as in religious thought: EXPERIENCE TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER DOCTRINE. If one is seeking verifiable facts given in chronological order that is simple to digest and retain, look elsewhere. For Levi is speaking of history in relation to his own private researches, to which he had dedicated his life since entering the priesthood in the Roman Catholic Church at the age of twelve. His is also a history of magic with literary antecedents; to the likes of Aurthur Rimbaud for instance, this work of Levi/Constant's was a veritable bible, whose symbolism permeates works such as "A Season In Hell" to a deliriant degree. There is perhaps not one writer or Artist regardless of medium between the years 1860-1930 who was not at least familiar with Levi/Constant; this fact extends from his own friends, such as Balzac, de Nerval, Victor Hugo, Dumas- to Breton, Crowley, Bataille, Meyrink, Henry Miller and innumerable others! The names cover from Western to Eastern Europe, as well as North America; and it is Levi who established what we define, in its cultural sense, as "Occultism" today. It is also largely because of his pioneering Occult works that the "19th century Occult Revival" merged with the Arts of the day, giving birth to the idea of "Art as Religion, & the Artist as Priest/magician". It was in the Occult that the Artist(spelled for the 1st time with a capital)found a definition of his own position, and most granted the highest respect and admiration to the Rabelaisian personage of Alphonse Louis Constant, which is Levi's real name. Aleister Crowley's lifework was centered around Eliphas's dream of a reconciliation between the arts of science & religion, for which he laboured and set down all that was required in his Occult as well as religious and revolutionary tomes, comprising together at least 20 works. The essential question in Levi's History Of Magic is NOT the accuracy of his scholarly objectivity, but his system's origins, structure, goals, and the benefits it bestows and light shined upon the Occultist's understanding of Magic in relation to the history of magic; that Levi's historical system differs from other interpretations is due to the fact that he was not so much interested in the historical facts as much as how the history and the knowledge it produced could benefit the modern-day Occultist operating in the world today. In this respect the text is given over to interpretation of all variety of magical personages, events, accomplishments, inventions, and works. Also essential to know is that it is thanks to the genius of the Philosopher/mathmetician Hoene Wronski and his CaBalistic insights that Levi gleaned much in his Philosophical approach. One may benefit also by disregarding any facts pseudo-scholar Waite provides on Constant's background as he had at the time of writing his prefaces' not one single work in regards to the life of Levi; his critical insights however are as valid as any, and for all his seeming hostility he in reality is truly, next to Crowley, perhaps Levi's biggest fan! waite is also to be commended for providing the bibliographical sources for those seeking "established facts"( which merely means some few people agree upon what they themselves only know from yet another source of questionable reliability) It is quite evident from a philosophical standpoint that the Occultist's rewards reaped from their experience outweighs in practical value what is the scholar's bane regardless of any amount of scholarly exactitude. In this sense, as much as in the exquisitely-toned bardic prose of Levi, he has created a historical work that will outlast innumerable others, standing as it does on the merits of great literature as well as being universally regarded as a pioneering classic of Occultism.

Why would anyone write a biography of a historic figure and use a cartoon of a baboon on the cover? Can that be the face of the author?

I doubt that the greatest general and statesman of ancient times looked like a baboon. More likely it's a leftist biographer.

Don Norton

What's wrong with the Education of Julius Caesar? In a word, Arthur Kahn can't seem to keep his Leftist political biases from coloring his evaluation of the Late Republic. His prejudices seep in on virutally every page in which the Senate is discussed. This is not to say that the Senators where saints; far from it. But they were men of their time, who had been raised in a political community that indoctrinated them into it's beliefs just as every other society does. Kahn seems to ignore this in his zeal to paint the "oligarchs", as he calls them, in a bad light. This is illegitimate, as anyone who understands the structure of the Roman state in that era must know. The Romans had a nomialist theory of the state. Rather than thinking that Rome as a poltical community was some kind of larger whole, over and above it's citizens, the Romans believed that Rome was nothing but the assembly of the Roman people as private persons. This is the reason they based citizenship and voting rights on wealth. Since they did not have a very sharp and differentiated notion of political as opposed to private life, they could not find a basis for evaluating one apart from the other. Thus, a rich man was literally more of a citizen than a poor one, because he had more of the Republic than the poor man did, due to his extensive property. We regard this as bizarre, but no one in Rome seems to have thought twice about it. A result of this identification of the personal and the political is the radical fusion of the personal interests of the rulers with those of the state. That is why the Senators reacted so violently to reform attempts - they knew no vision of politics that would enable them to see any degradation of their posiiton as anything other than an attack of Roman society itself. They simply could not differentiate their own positions of power from the State. This is what Kahn ignores. In page after page, he portrays the Senate as a gang of cynical, ruthless misers out to strip everyone else to the bone while hiding their crimes under the name of patriotism. In truth, these sad little men just didn't know any better. Kahn ignores this, and thus projects his own class-warfare ridden politics onto men who lived two millenia ago.

If you want a good biography of Caesar, try Christian Meier's "Caesar", availble at Amazon.com, instead.

I found Kahn's book fascinating, although I agree with an earlier reviewer that I regret he could not keep his personal politics more out of his book - irritating, but a small caveat when there is so much of use here. It's as if Kahn is too prone to project Rome in 60 BC onto the U.S. in, say, 1935. I've read many books on Caesar (including C. Meier's rather romantic German version) and in many ways, I enjoyed Kahn's more than any except Gelzer (who is still the best). Kahn has his finger on almost every significant event in Caesar's (and the late Republic's) life and is able to work through the facts both thoroughly and logically. In fact, the book is almost overwhelming in its detail. Agreed, he is one of the "pro-Caesar" faction - which seems almost by definition to mean, he's anti-Optimate. Well, it's the rare historian of Caesar who can manage not to take sides on this subject, the very issue that tore the Republic apart. Read the book with the realization that you have a fine bio of Caesar here, accurate and thorough, but more than slightly prejudiced against the Roman Senate that so thoroughly detested and tried to destroy Caesar and you will do very well.

Wayne Curtis has done his homework and his recommendations are the best out in guides today. This is the primary, and only, reason for getting this guide. Otherwise, in all other areas, it falls flat.

There is NO mention of web sites to help travelers gain more information, even with a publication date of 2000. There is only scant reference to web site and email addresses for accommodations. This is an area that has become as essential as physical addresses and phone numbers. By using the net you can view the venue, get real time price quotes and make reservations. The time and significant cost savings is evident and should be in all guides by now.

There is NO information explaining the region's land, ecology, history, government, economy, climate etc. There is NO "recommended reading" section. There are NO 'boxed' vignettes that usually embellish other Guides and explain unique and interesting aspects of the region (and Maritime Canada has a ton of titillating facts and stories).

But, most unbelievable, is that this guide has virtually NO maps! A guide covering five Canadian Provinces that has ten maps of marginal quality (compare to 61 maps in Moon's Atlantic Canada) is woefully sad. A good guide will have a plethora of easy to read maps. A great guide will have city maps that note the location of restaurants and accommodations.

If it were not for Wayne Curtis' "spot on" recommendations I would give this guide a "not Recommenced". But if you choose to purchase it, you will need to supplement it with another quality guide like , Moon's "Atlantic Canada Handbook", then Curtis' recommendations can help. Conditionally recommended.

The guide is very informative on accomendations and restaurants of any price level BUT and this is a huge BUT..the information given doesn't always show up on the LESS THAN CLEAR maps. Some of the towns aren't even on the maps provided and the ONE full color map is more like a road map instead of a detailed one that should have been included. I like the fact that it is informative about Attractions but how do you get there and where are they? Also, needs more information on the parks. I wouldn't buy this book as my only guide but as a appendix for a true tour guide of this gorgeous region.

I am planning my first trip to Nova Scotia for October 2002 and have been haunting the book stores in Boston for good guides. Near the end of my book search, I came across the 2002 (4th) edition of the Frommer's guide and it has been a regular companion for me as I plan the details of my trip.

Let me make a few things clear here. There are still NO good maps in the book. And there are still NO nice sidebars filled with local tidbits.

But then again, this is NOT that type of book. This Frommer's guide is the nitty-gritty, the essence of what you would want to know for each of the major areas in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island. The guide does a good job of giving you information on at least a few places to stay (if there are any in that area), places to eat, tours, and any major landmarks or places to visit in a number of cities and towns, even the smaller ones. And the price range is mostly geared for low-budget to mid-range values. The book is also a smaller size, allowing you to easily carry it around or stash it when you travel. The format is easy to read, and the layout is clean and uncluttered.

I know other reviewers have complained about the guide. To get over these complaints, I suggest augmenting the Frommer's with the official Nova Scotia travel guide (a behemonth, comprehensive thing) that has great photos, maps, and the like; request it for free from the tourism office. (Why would you buy only ONE guidebook for a place you've never been to before?!) There are also some other good guidebooks on the market that will fill in some of the (small) gaps of the Frommer's. And please!--anyone with access to the Internet can easily do web searches for websites that have tons of info on Nova Scotia, including the official Nova Scotia website.

Give it a try. At the very least, if you get it and don't like it, you can return it. I look forward to making my trip and then verifying the info I've gotten from the Frommer's guidebook.

The research and the premise behind this book are seriously flawed, thus "an errant stroll down an irrelevant path." Some very notable Civil War scholars have all taken the time to read this tedious tome, and have managed to shed some light on the nature of the misinformation presented by Bergeron. First, most of the names that Bergeron produces prove to be support personnel: cooks, teamsters, man servants, and the like. Most of the gun-toting "Confederates" that Bergeron does produce actually turn out to be "home guards," a loosely organized group of militia that never actually operated with the Confederate army and certainly never saw combat. One of the few "black" combatants that Bergeron *does* manage to produce actually turns out to have been mistakenly admitted to the Confederate Army under the assumption that he was white. When the truth was discovered, he was promptly discharged.

For perhaps the ultimate authority on this matter, we should look to Robert Krick, chief historian for the National Park Service at Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville and author of ten books on the Confederacy. He has researched over 200,000 service records, and says he's come across maybe "six, or 12 at the very most" who might have been black. Hardly supportive of the notion that there were more than a handful of black Confederate combatants.

However, this is all a very amusing stroll down an irrelevant path. Even if Bergeron managed to provide real evidence of several thousand black soldiers fighting for the Confederacy instead of the shoddily researched handfuls that he does give us, what would be the point? Many of the Wermacht soldiers were of Jewish lineage, and 77 of Hitler's highest ranking officers were either Jewish or married to Jews. Does this lead us to feel any less horrified by the actions of the National Socialists? Are we to believe that a smattering of collaboration is somehow equal to a wholesale endorsement?

This book is another sad example in the ongoing struggle to rewrite history. Rather than read this, I suggest you do yourself a favor and read a serious book about the attitudes of the south prior to the war, most notably "Apostles of Disunion" and "Crisis of Fear."

The idea that the Confederate Army consisted of any black soldiers at all is a refutation to the modern notion the all Southern whites hated all Southern blacks in pre-Civil war days. That the ranks of black soldiers were more than an insignificant smattering turns conventional wisdom on its head.

According to the thoroughly documented essays in this volume, black support for the confederacy was broad and intense. Some of the black supporters were free blacks--many of whom owned slaves themselves. No doubt some were uneducated slaves duped by unscrupulous Southern partisans to back a cause they did not understand. Some must have been forced to aid the confederacy against their wills, but the majority of individuals discussed in these pages wholeheartedly agreed with the objectives of the rebellion.

To those who may dismiss the findings of this work, their legitimacy seems proven by the extensive documentation. At times the superscript weighs down the pages as assertion after assertion is annotated. Six different authors contributed to the collection and at times the facts are illogically tautological. Two essays by Richard Rollins-allegedly about different subjects--rehash much of the same data. Especially disturbing is the second offering titled "Black Confederates At Gettysburg," which barely touches on that subject. While this disorganized presentation is a sizable detraction, the work is a genuine eye-opener.

Those of us living in the twenty-first century will probably find the choices made by these slaves as impossible to comprehend as the fact that human beings could ever be bought and sold as property. One of Mr. Rollins vignettes makes an essential point concerning "the need to be sensitive to the historical figures we deal with in the context of the time they lived, rather than allow the ideological and intellectual assumptions of our own day to dictate what we have to say about the people of the civil war era-both black and white." Centuries from now common folk may very well look back at our "enlightened era" aghast that we condoned partial-birth abortion and euthanasia.

Our rightful revulsion to the slave trade should not allow us to forget that many confederate soldiers-both black and white--were noble men. Nothing in this conglomeration makes any attempt to diminish the horror that all decent people know slavery was. Perhaps it is the institutionalized unfairness of their lives that makes the profiled black patriots' sacrifices all the more doughty. The book's most challenging postulation may be Ervin L. Jordan's lament that the slaves and free black citizens served the confederacy "not as a consequence of white pressure but due to their own preferences. They are the Civil War's forgotten people, yet their own existence was more widespread than American history has recorded. Their bones rest in unhonored glory in Southern soil, shrouded by falsehoods, indifference, and historians' censorship."

History is made up of the stories surrounding events and this book adds another story worth reading.
Many people still believe the Civil War was about slavery, not state rights. Many people also do not realize that right before slavery was officially banned by the U.S. governement, there were over 400 blacks that worked as slaves to help build the capital building. Blacks had been selling their own people (and whites) into slavery long before the U.S. got involved in the trade. True, it was a serious mistake that has repercusions that are still being felt in this country.
It is interesting to note, however, that considering how bad the pre-Civil War South is made to sound, the American Africans in this country have long enjoyed better standards of living and health than in any other country, especially their countries of origin. This book points out that many blacks were in favor of preserving the Southern government. Not only that, it points out that even after receiving freedom, many chose to go back and work for their old masters pretty much as before. There were many blacks loved and adored by their families and this is one unfortunate piece of Civil War history often overlooked. It seems the concepts that founded this country are gradually being lost. Now more than ever, the issue of states rights needs to be re-visited to protect the sovereignty, strength and long-term well-being of the U.S. Or we will pass from United STATES to something akin to the United KING-DOM.

This review is for a book by Strathern published in Canada under the title
"Dr. Strangelove's Game: A Brief History of Economic Genius".

I found this book a major disappointment. It seems to me that the author is
clearly outside his field of expertise, the result being a book riddled
with errors. For instance, in his exposition of Ricardo's theory of
comparative advantage, the example has no comparative advantage. If he had
bothered to read a chapter of an introductory international economics book,
he would have found a clear illustration, Similarly, his description of
Edgeworth's contract curve is muddled and wrong with one consumer gaining
utility at the expense of the other. Indeed, it seems that the author spent
so little time writing the book that he does not even get his arithmetic
right -- his own numbers indicating the American domestic market was 167
percent larger than the British in 1910, not 250 percent larger as claimed.

To his merit, he does say something about nearly every major figure in
economics up to Friedman -- I would probably have included Samuelson as
well -- and other figures as well, e.g., Luca Pacioli, the father of
accounting. And his prose is quite readable, although I found his tendency
towards hyperbole annoying.

On the whole, if you are interested in biographical sketches of leading
economic thinkers in history and are not concerned about an explanation of
their ideas, you may find this book interesting. But I would look
elsewhere.

I bought this book hoping it might shed some insights into the thoughts and times of the world's greatest economists and I got what I hoped for. In particular I was hoping to see if the author did a good job in relating economics to other areas such as politics, science, sociology, history philosophy and mathematics and the book fulfilled my desire. The book was well written, in terms of prose, making it an easy book to read economics books, especially for non-economists.

If I had anything to gripe it would be the EXTREMELY poor editing. Throughout the book I found words that had mistakenly been split up by a spac e mark, such as what I have included in this review. One or two can be forgiven but the twenty or so I seem to have come across is truly shameful for a book at approximately $20 or more. As a result of this and the poor examples provided I rate the book a 3 star book

This book, like The Worldly Philosophers and New Ideas from Dead Economists, is designed to illustrate the thoughts and history of the world's greatest economic thinkers. Economists. This book is ideal for those seeking to learn about some of the contributions of the world's greatest economists as well as those who are history buffs and want to learn more about the times / overlap of the world's greatest minds in other areas such as philosophy, science, etc as many of these individuals had an impact on economists of their times.

Economists highlighted in the book, which goes in chronological order from past to recent, include Adam Smith, David Ricardo, John Stuart Mill, Karl Marx, Robert Malthus, George Marshall, Thorton Veblen, Joseph Schumpeter, John von Neumann, John Nash and Milton Friedman.

Some historic events mentioned in the book, since they affected the economists' thoughts, are Holland's 17th-century bout of tulipmania, Britain's notorious South Sea Bubble, The French Revolution, the Great Depression, and the rebuilding and retribution strategies following the two world wars.

Most of my reviews are in business / economics and I encourage people to read them. If you are interested in another excellent economics book I would start with The Worldly Philosophers (which I would buy before this book) and then read Hernando DeSoto's Mystery of Capital. A great general business book is by the management guru Peter Drucker entitled "The Essential Drucker". Just so you know, he didn't pick the title but his work is excellent and highly applicable for managers.

One final note, The Mystery Of Capital is a highly regarded, easy to read book on economic development that is VERY popular in the offices of dignitaries throughout the world, including Paul O'Neill (Secretary of State for the U.S). During a recent CNBC documentary on Mr. O'Neill the secretary met Mr. DeSoto to get some insights before his trip to Africa where he will focus on ways to improve economic development in 3rd world nations.

A Brief History Of Economic Genius by Paul Strathern (Lecturer in Mathematics and Philosophy, Kingston University, London) is an engaging and highly accessible look at the most eccentric and gifted economists including Johann Becher (1635-1682); John Law (1671-1729); Adam Smith (1723-1790); Robert Malthus (1766-1833); Karl Marx (1818-1883); Thorstein Veblen (1857-1929); and John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946). These notable and influential figures, along with their triumphs and failings, and the evolution of the science of economics, are all intelligibly considered in this fascinating presentation that is recommended for academia, as well as the non-specialist general reader.

I recently returned from a 3 month tour of Europe and took this book with me. While it did have a number of major European cities in it the actual information about them was definetly lacking. I found my self usually better off with out a book at all as opposed to only having this one. Several other travelers we met felt the same way and some were lucky enough to have Lonely Planet guides. For the money spent I'll stick to them or Rick Steves in the future. i.e. This book would take you to the train station/ subway but then fall short on what the heck to do to get a ticket!!! Which is important information stranded in 20 different stations/ subways a month each with different customs. Frommer's did do an excellent job of pointing out all of the gay and lesbian districs and bars in each city and the gay friendly hotels and shops... but they also have a strickly gay guide to Europe as well. The amount of space used for this information could have been better allocated for more pertinent information. I'll have to give a thumbs down on this book. Take something else with you or take nothing at all.

Frommer's does a good job with the general hints on travelling cheaper, but unless you plan on visiting only the major cities and capitals only, look for another book. There are 24 major cities and surrounding areas covered from Ireland to Budapest, but that's not many cities in comparison with all of Europe. I only will have a short time in Europe and that means that I will only be able to visit two of the cities listed and have to use another book for everything in between. Lonely Planet is much more inclusive and definitely covers the lower price scale.

Just returned from a 2 month trip using the 2002 guide. I found the recommendations for the restaurants to be excellent. After realizing that the Frommer's writers and I had the same tastes, I made it a point of seeking out all of their 'starred' recommendations for restaurants. The sightseeing descriptions and recommendations were also quite good. The hotel recommendations were not as good. A few of the hotels we stayed in that were not 'starred' or listed as a 'Find' were not as comfortable as hotels in other books.

We traveled with this Frommer's, Rick Steves, Lonely Planet and Rough Guides through France, Belguim, Austria, Switzerland, Germany, Netherlands, Czech Republic, Hungary, and Italy. We liked Rick Steves' recommendations for lodging, Frommer's for restaurants and both for sightseeing. Lonely Planet and Rough Guides were not used if in a Frommer's city. If in a Rick Steve's city (but not Frommer's) we used Lonely Planet for restaurant recommendations (not as good a Frommer's but better than Rick Steves).

Background: Two travelers, professional, early 30s with enough money to stay out of the hostels, but did not want to blow the bank of 5 star lodging. Rick Steve's packing philosophy. Both traveler's love to eat!!

This book was meant to serve as part picture book, part mini-packet of magical trivia. It was not marketed as an actual religious text of any stripe.

I think that this book can be used to open up discussion between open-minded parents and their kids. If a young person sees something in the book and asks, "what's this?", parents then have the opportunity to actually TALK to their kid(s) about something ancient and potentially meaningful.

Sure, there are better books on the history and practice of magic and witchcraft; but this book is meant to spark an interest, not encompass an entire cirriculum.

This book is fascinating! The pages are repleat with exquisite photographs of actual artifacts. Covers a diverse sampling of witchcraft from around the world and through time. Blatantly honest and frighteningly factual.

This book is NOT SUPPOSED to have, you know, spells and that kind of stuff. It is explaining a brief history of WitchCraft, not just New Age and Wicca. But it is a great explanation to non-Pagans and people just interested in magic(k)-making throughout the ages. OK? Besides all the Eyewitness books have excellent pictures, and good text. If you want to learn Wicca like me, read _Exploring Wicca_ or _Drawing Down the Moon_. If you are merely curious about magic(k)-making, READ THIS BOOK!!!