The life-world is a field of action. But action is not praxis. Acton should get meanings. Today, the life-world is faced with split.People are becoming one-sided. Schutz and Luckmann's research gave us a guide,they analied the sturcture of everydaylife, told us how to balance different aspects of our life. We'll know how to esteblish the meaning in the future. Shuguang,Yin.

I enjoyed this book, and read it in one day, pouring through the various chapters and one tragedy to the next. My only complaint is that many of the chapters were excerpts from other books, and the stories sometimes felt unfinished. Those excerpts would cover the hit (or near miss) of the summit, then cover some sort of trial to the participating climbers. The climbers may or may not survive the trial, and then that would be the end of it. I actually craved a little bit more of the post-expedition soul-searching.

This book is essentially a compilation of short stories from books written by world class mountaineers. Anyone who is well read in this genre will immediately recognize these short stories from the books they were taken. The stories are exceptionally well written and edited. Some are epic survival tales and others document the never ending string of tragedies that befall many mountaineering expeditions. The format works well even though the stories are in no particular time sequence. I highly recommend this book, and many of the other books from which the stories have been excerpted. Pick some of your favorite short stories from this book and follow up with the complete tomes. You will not be disappointed.

This book contains the greatest short stories about climbing that I have ever read. Each story is unique and as entertaining as the other.

Jane Camerini's slender anthology of Wallace's writings (and writings about him) is intended to provide an introduction to the great naturalist, primarily through his adventures in the field. Camerini has chosen a format for presenting this information very similar to that provided by another Wallace scholar, Barbara Beddall, whose "Wallace and Bates in the Tropics" was published way back in 1969. Camerini supplements excerpts from four books with her own introductory commentaries and a few additional Wallace essays, hoping that this will give the reader unfamiliar with his accomplishments some feel for them. I think she succeeds in this endeavor. The book is well organized and presented, including a number of interesting photos and figures, and Camerini's editorial commentaries are mostly right on target. Yet I cannot help but feel the brevity of the treatment will leave some readers puzzled. I'm not sure that the decision to include several essays of a more technical nature in a 200 page work was well advised; the gap between the fieldwork studies and Wallace's thought is considerable--not unfathomable, but not straightforward either--and the average reader may need more help than Camerini gives to appreciate the transition. Alternately, it might have been interesting to dwell strictly on the field studies--incorporating a greater diversity of excerpts--and then merely to refer to his future philosophical directions in a page or two of editorial comment at the end. Still, an interesting contribution to Wallace studies, and one which is likely to both complement and not duplicate the several others that will be appearing over the next months.

Jane Camerini has performed a great service to all who are
interested in evolutionary theory. Wallace deserves to be
regarded as the co-founder of the modern theory of evolution.
He also wrote on a wide range of scientific and social topics.
Camerini's introductory remarks to each of the essays in this
collection help put them in their context.

The best book for the Step 3. Believe me. I checked quite a few books before I decided to buy this one. Take some time to answer all he 2000+ questions, but after finishing them, you don't need to read much more. Every little detail encountered in the test is addressed in Swanson's, including ethics and so forth.
I got a pretty good score in the test!!!

...this is the one to buy! Though this book is long, if you want one book that captures the essentials of everything on Step 3, you will definitely find it here.

The questions are grouped together by a case of a patient presenting with the typical historical complaints of a particular clinical problem or diagnosis. For a hypertensive patient, for example, not only will they discuss diagnosis and treatment of hypertension, but they also have questions dealing with hypertensive urgencies, inpatient and outpatient management. The OB cases are comprehensive and manage to avoid the "controversial" issues for those who do not practice OB and want to review the basic principles for Step 3. The psychiatry section is also very good at helping to distinguish between similar diagnoses using case-based discussions and comparisons.

For all those who want to be good doctors,i have got a piece of advice which is Buy this book now!!!!.Though this book was written for the family practice review boards this is just as much worth for candidates who are preparing for usmle step 2 and step3.It contains all the basic information as what is done routinely in each and every case starting from the diagnosis to treatment.It covers each and every clincial specalities like medicine,surgery,gyna and obs,psychiatry,ethics and much more.I am preparing for step 3 right now and found this book worth a million dollars.The kind of information i gained from this book is amazing for instance
I always knew that the treatment of myocardial infarction is nitrates,aspirin,thrombolytic therapy and angiographic procedures like angioplasty.But after reading this book i came to know as what is exactly done after acutley treating this patient like you shift him to ICU and do a test for ejection fraction.Before discharging the patient which is usually 4-5 days after inpatient treatment you give the patient a submaximal stress test and ask the patient to come after 4-6 weeks ifthe sub maximal test is negative for the maximal stress test.You can ask the patient to resume his usual activity by 6-8 weeks and sexual intercourse by 4 weeks.
I gained lot of practical information like this.Excellent book!!

They were the odd couple of cinema: Hitchcock's spry, intelligent thrillers were very much at odds with Selznick's adaptions notable for their fidelity to their source. Hitchcock, in contrast, was anything but faithful to the source material of his many film adaptions. Both adaptions and original material focused on key visual images around which the plot was built. Selznick was the opposite of Hitch in that his productions were focused more on the narrative. Their collaboration managed to enrich each other's skills.

Although they made few films together during their ten year "collaboration" (in reality Hitch was under contract so his status was more as suborindate than equal), most of them are hampered by their lack of cohesive styles. As producer/director they didn't hit their collborative stride until Hitch's Notorius in 1946. Most of Hitch's work was with other producers and studios for which he was loaned out like any other actor or director of the time.

Nevertheless, Hitch learned valuable lessons in structuring a film for the American audience. He also managed to reach an audience that he could only have imagined before coming to America. Selznick's most valuable lesson was learning to let his directors occasionally have their way on projects.

Leff's book is a bit too scholarly in tone for the average film fan but is well written and researched. It's also quite expensive given that it's a large format paperback (this probably has to do with the small audience imagined for it and the fact that it comes from the UC Press). Many of Leff's more interesting observations have turned up as commentary on a number of Criterion DVDs (particularly the Spellbound DVD released last year).

There were many classic films produced during their time together but just as many misfires (Spellbound, despite it's many attributes is a good example of the disasterous turn their collaboration could take). Hitch hadn't hit the height of his powers as a director yet. His most powerful films (Rear Window, North by Northwest, Vertigo, The Trouble With Charlie, Strangers on a Train, Psycho and The Birds)loomed in his future. Nevertheless, his films from this time frame are, at times, revolutionary in one way or another (Saboteur, Shadow of a Doubt, Lifeboat among many others).

This book details their work together from uneasy partnership to the truce that allowed Hitch to produce one of his most magnificient films (Notorius). Although Hitch's work has come to dominate our culture more than Selznick's (with the possible exception of Gone With The Wind), neither man would have achieved his goals without the other.

You probably couldn't find two more fascinating personalities in the history of cinema than Hitchcock and Selznick, and Mr. Leff does an excellent job providing background information and behind-the-scenes details on their collaborations. The book tends to slow down at times, mostly due to expositionary passages which are essential, but which delay getting to the good stuff.

One thing I would have liked more of would have been more information on what each of these characters did away from each other. I realize that gets away from the main thesis, but I think that Mr. Leff tries to involve as many of those details as he can into his narrative but is forced to pare it down to stay on course.

What's particularly interesting is how Hitchcock and Selznick virtually switched places in the Hollywood hierarchy over the course of their time together. Knowing what we know about each man in his later years lends an extra creedence to Mr. Leff's work.

For any serious fan and student of Hitchcock, this compellingly readable book is a must. Should be on the bookshelf along with Donald Spoto's great book "The Dark Side of Genius." Where Spoto's book provides excellent detail on the Hitchcock side of this strained but dynamic collaboration, Leff's book fills the gap on the Selznick end, providing both an historical perspective (Hitchcock on the rise, Selznick at the beginning of his decline) and an insightful look at the filmmaking methods of both men, striving to push the envelope in the repressive era of Will Hayes' Hollywood code. Hitch may have bridled under Selznick's heavy-handedness, his obsession with using name talent and his emphasis on dialogue and character development. Yet, many of the great Hitchcock films that came after their colloaboration bear the mark of Selznick's influence in all these areas. Mr. Leff's book offers an eminently fair rendering of each man's creative contributions and personal angst in their 10 year association, and is an important contribution to mid-20th century American film history.

Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn star as the liberal parents of Katherine Houghton who find their liberal point of view challenged when she brings home her fiance, Sidney Poitier. Although he's a doctor with impeccable credentials, her parents (and later his parents) worry whether the couple understands the adversity they will face if they go ahead with their interracial marriage. When watching this film, it is important to remember it was made at a different time in the world and would have been more controversial in the Sixties than today. The actors are all strong, with particular praise going to Tracy, Poitier, Cecil Kellaway as a family friend, Beah Richards as Poitier's mother, and Isabel Sanford as Hepburn and Tracy's maid. Although it's great to watch such pros in action, the script isn't always up to their level. Some of the conflict is simplisticly presented, with a final speech by Tracy that he pulls off like only he could, but which is too theatrical. There isn't much tension either, since it seems obvious how the film will end. But no doubt director Stanley Kramer and the screenwriter had to be careful how the material was presented, and in the capable hands of all those involved, it runs smoothly and probably appears better than it really is.

The year 1967 was one where three subjects were on the minds of many Americans: the hippie revolution, war and predjudicism/racism. The latter is very well documented in the Stanley Kramer directorial epic "Guess Who's Coming To Dinner", in that its subject, interracial relationships, somewhat examines the various types of prejudices people were casting out during that era. The movie begins with an elitist couple, Dr. John Prentice and Joey Drayton (both craftfully played by Oscar nominee Sidney Poitier and Katharine Houghton), who are experiencing a romantic high after meeting on vacation in Hawaii. Tired from the trip, Dr. Prentice wants a little r & r at a hotel, but Joey insists that The Good Doctor meet her upper class parents, so they imediately go to Joey's mother's place of employment, only to find her mother isn't there, then it's on to Joey's parents' home. Upon Mrs. Drayton's (played brilliantly to an Academy award nominated performance by Katharine Hepburn) first glance of Dr. Prentice, she is both shocked and amazed of the prospect that the doctor is black. Much the same is true about Mr. Drayton's postion on the situation (also played to an award-winning performance by Spencer Tracy), who's even more shocked and appalled over his daughter's relationship with Dr. Prentice than his wife is. The Drayton's maid Tillie (played wonderfully by Isabel Sanford [of "The Jeffersons"]) isn't all that crazy about Dr. Prentice, either, and sees him as nothing more than an arrogant, uppity man who enjoys getting what he wants, but that's further from the truth, as Joey sees Dr. Prentice as a kind, wonderful human being whom she wants to marry. As time progresses forward, Mrs. Drayton softens up in her stance concerning the relationship, while Mr. Drayton's stance gets even more firm with each passing moment. Note the painstakingly intense expression on Spencer Tracy's face during the many scenes of this picture. You can understand why he's been nominated for various awards throughout various points of his career. When Dr. Prentice's parents are invited to dinner, it seems that all hell will break loose, as both families continue to analyze the situation further. Even with some trite coddling and persuasion from Mrs. Drayton, she still is not able to sell the mixed marriage idea to her husband. At the same time, Dr. Prentice is having just as much difficulty in getting his father, and in certain instances his mother, to see the benefits of this relatinship. Notice the scene where Dr. Prentice stands up to his father. Sidney Poitier's remarkably intense, emotional acting style is unmistakable here, as he lets loose a temper with such fire and gusto. 1967 was perhaps Sidney Poitier's finest moment in theater, as he starred in three of the hottest movies that year: as the soft and stern scholteacher in "To Sir, With Love", as the convincing Virgil Tibbs in "In The Heat Of The Night" and in "Guess Who's Coming To Dinner", all fine performances, indeed.As tensions continue to surface between both John and Joey's paternal parents, it is up to the Drayton's pastoral advisor, Monsignor Ryan, to talk some sense into the disrupted parties. He finally succeeds in the end, as one of the most emotional scenes in the movie occurs, courtesy of Katharine Hepburn. While on the road to Mr. Drayton's changing his mind about the marriage proceedings, which he comes to accept, Mrs. Drayton lets out a tear filled display of emotion that only Ms. Hepburn can create, which explains her wealth of fandom, not to mention several Oscar and Academy awards on her mantle throughout her glorious career. As is expected, all's well that ends well, as John and Joey are off to Switzerland for their wedding, which tearfully, we never get to witness. It is because of this fine film's theme, including its stunning cast, that makes "Guess Who's Coming To Dinner" worthy of being in any motion picture connoisseur's video library. A must not miss!

Guess Who's Coming To Dinner was a ground breaking film upon its release in 1967. The story revolves around a liberal San Francisco couple whose twenty-three year old daughter comes home from a trip to Hawaii and surprises them by announcing she's engaged to an older man who also happens to be black. The couple, Matt & Christina Drayton, is played by screen legends Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn. Sidney Poitier, Dr. John Prentice, is the fiancé and Katharine Houghton, Joey Drayton, (who is Ms. Hepburn's niece) is their daughter. Matt & Christina are obviously shaken by the news and concerned about the situation. It is not because they are prejudice against minorities as their daughter is marrying a black man, but it is against the struggles she will face in such a relationship. Also, the doctor has put it to them that if they do not approve and give their blessings, he will call the marriage off. They have less than twenty-four hours to make their decision and they struggle with it, especially Matt. He is a crusading newspaper publisher who has championed liberal causes all his life, but faced with this situation, his beliefs are shaken to their core. Throughout the day they get council from their best friend, Monsignor Ryan (a superb Cecil Kellaway, who provides them with guidance and a voice of reason. Joey invites John's parents (Roy Glenn & Beah Richards) up from Los Angeles to dinner. Upon finding out Joey is white his parents voice their displeasure with the situation as well. When the two sets of parents get together, the mothers agree that they will support their children because they love them, but the fathers take an opposing view. Mr. Poitier gives a powerful and forceful retribution to his father about the state of black men in the current day and it shows why he is such a brilliant actor. In the end, Matt gives an impassioned speech to John & Joey about the struggles they will face and the unkindness that will be heaped on them, but that if they truly love each they will survive. Director Stanley Kramer does a brilliant job of making the film poignant yet not sappy. The cast are all brilliant and Ms. Hepburn would end up taking home her second Best Actress Oscar (after a thirty-four span from her first for Morning Glory in 1933) and the film won a second Oscar for William Rose for his screenplay. The film is definitely dated as interracial marriages are not as shocking as they were at the time and interracial couples have been the basis of countless films since then. The film is still powerful, because prejudices still exist in this country and the quandary one has when they have their beliefs tested is all too real. Mr. Tracy was gravelly ill at the time and it turned out that this would be his final film. He died two weeks after its completion, but he was posthumous given his final Academy Award Best Actor nomination and he delivered a powerful and lasting reminder of why he was one of the greatest actors in film history.