A fine account of a most interesting and crucial series of Civil War battles. Stackpole treats everyone very fairly. Broad in its scope, audacious in its execution this book analyzes the Confederacy's third and final invasion of the North. A very excellent work that is well worth the time.

This Book begins using something called horizontial statments and then in chapter 5 switches to regular T accounts thus confusing students completely, I have yet to find a student that tells me the book is easy to understand or useful. It would be helpful if there was a solutions manual. Our school will change books next semester. It's not even good enough to make dorm furniture.

I've read the reviews stating that this is a confusing book. I disagree completely. Although the author does not immediately delve into traditional T-accounts, the introduction of the "horizontal model" serves as a good foundation for building the awareness of the accounting equation that should be second nature BEFORE tackling T-accounts. The text's preface states: "A horizontal financial statements model replaces the accounting equation as the predominant teaching platform. The model enables students to VISUALIZE THE SIMULTANEOUS EFFECTS OF A SINGLE BUSINESS EVENT on the income statement, balance sheet, and statement of cash flows." I felt as though this methodology was very effective for my learning style. Recording transactions in T-accounts came almost as second nature after mastering the horizontal model.

The "Working Papers" (a separate workbook) makes doing the assigned problems easy by providing a ready-made template for each problem. If you've had to draw your own T-accounts or your own journal in a notebook before, you will definitely appreciate this.

This text serves as a good introduction to the skills necessary to master financial accounting.

This book is an excellent book to go with a Financial Accounting course. Everything is laid out in plain English, and shows you in diagrams and models exactly how each kind of transaction works. I recommend for professors everywhere to adopt this book for their clases. I'm glad mine did!

This is NOT simply a set of articles criticising NATO's 1999 assault on Serbia. Rather, its contributors appear horrified with the very thought of human empathy for the oppressed Albanian people of Kosovo on the part of Western observers. They count corpses, deny atrocities and minimise suffering to the point where it appears almost as though life for the Albanians in Milosevic's Kosovo was actually pretty rosy. There is a great deal of insincerity here. Thus Mick Hume professes concern at comparisons between Milosevic and Hitler: they involve minimising the unique horror of the Holocaust, he says. This is a bit rich coming from someone who spent much of the 1990s equating the Croats and Germans of today with the Nazis. Diana Johnstone views the Serbs almost as a kind of 'chosen people' whom she imbues with mystical powers of resistence to her imaginary Western imperialist conspiracies. After reading this book, I do not believe that even if Milosevic really had exterminated six million people in gas chambers the reaction of these authors would have been any different. Whatever next ? Perhaps a sequel claiming that the Taliban were great feminists and that their atrocities against women were the invention of the Western media...

The best story is how the Serb parliament passed a resolution just before the war started accepting a peaceful solution. What kind of naivete allows one to give credibility to a parliament dominated by Milosevic cronies, one that supported genocide in Croatia and Bosnia? Does the author not know what happened in Bosnia, where the Serbs behaved like patholigical liars, fooling the West into believing them, then killing 250,000 people? Does the author recall how the British, to him the leaders of anti-Serb propaganda, from day one appeased the Serbs in Bosnia, and only reluctantly got involved in the Balkans? It is pathetic how persons can ignore common sense in order to write something different. It is so boring to rest one's laurels on breaking percieved conformist thinking, while abandoning inteligent ethical commentary in the process. Serbs will love this book, as will people who lack the ability to distinguish right from wrong. Chomskyism is becoming too morally confused to be relevant any longer. This boring author should have been made to spend a year in Vukovar, Sarajevo or Pristina when they were under Serb domination. Read Noel Malcom's "Kososo: a Short History."

This is the best book yet on the NATO aggression of March-June 1999. It also studies the media coverage of the war. The first part consists of four essays on the background to the war, David Chandler's essay, Western intervention and the disintegration of Yugoslavia, 1989-1999, being outstanding. The second and third parts comprise fourteen essays on media coverage around the world, including a brilliant essay on CNN's role as NATO's mouthpiece. Unfortunately, however, there is no essay studying the huge popular opposition to the war in Europe and America.

This was NATO's first war, and it attacked a sovereign country with no UN authorisation. It showed itself as an alliance with no legal or geographic limits, in which the USA and Germany quarrelled like rats in a sack. To trigger the war, the US government demanded that NATO forces occupy the whole country. As a US official said, "We intentionally set the bar too high for the Serbs to comply. They need some bombing, and that's what they are going to get."

It was also the EU's war. From 1990, the EC intervened in Yugoslavia's internal affairs, aiding those seeking to secede. Its recognition of Yugoslavia's seceding republics breached international law, precipitating war. The EU's social democratic governments embrace capital, 'the market' and big business: their enemy is nationalism, politics, demonised as the source of all evil.

Germany, the USA, Austria and Albania armed the Kosovo Liberation Army. In early 1998, the KLA's first major attack provoked a Serb crackdown. NATO claimed that the Serbs killed 100,000 people. Later the International Criminal Tribunal of The Hague counted 2,500 dead. The NATO bombing killed 2,600 people. Who should be tried for war crimes?

After the war, the US Congress voted $100 million to 'independent' forces in former Yugoslavia, seeking its further disintegration. NATO was supposed to disarm the KLA and to protect Serbs and Roma Gypsies in Kosovo. But it has allowed the KLA to kill more than 200 Serbs and to expel 240,000 Serbs and 90,000 Roma.

Berry made some good points in his book on Sidney's self-representation, but it needs to be read with great caution. It can be dangerous for an amateur, such as a 12-year-old who uses it as a source of knowledge. Even though his central argument stands unimpaired, Berry's treatment of the Arcadia is a mess. He made so many unbelievable errors about the very basics of the Arcadia as a fiction--character names and plot--that one cannot help wondering if he had read the book twice or even once before he tried to write two lengthy chapters on it. In addition to Berry, University of Toronto Press is not free from blame. Many of the errors Berry made can be detected by someone who has never read the Arcadia before, and the Press apparently failed to see them. For instance, Berry assigns a speech to different characters at different places (only pages apart in his book). Confusing the protagonist's pseudonym and his mistress's name, Berry also has the young man consummate his love with himself. In the labyrinth of Berry's discussion of the plot and characters, one can see something comparable to Hamlet's love affair with Juliet or Macbeth's exile in the Forest of Arden. Certainly the Arcadia is a difficult book and Berry is not alone in making mistakes about the numerous characters and complicated plot. Still, Berry's book is an amazing oddity with its outstanding number of mistakes and his consistency in making them. It is a book useful not for an amateur but for a scholar. It teaches an important lesson: never attempt to write a book on something you know very little.

This was a great book for researching purposes. Not a joy reading book. If you are doing a report on Sir Philip Sidney for school, this is the best book avaliable. It talks about his life and how he became famous, as well as lots of his poetry. I did a report on the poet and used this book. I got an A on it, and so will you. The book was a big help, it is very easy to understand.

The small book devotes two pages each to about three dozen authors, spiritual seekers and fictional characters. One page briefly describes the person and something about their life and philosophy; the second provides a supposedly complete list of the small number of items each person lived with or took on a trip. It's thought provoking as to how much - or how little - stuff we really need to live a good life. At the same time it's a VERY brief book that can be read in about 30 minutes. Because there is a bibliography listing one or more sources for or about each person this book might best be considered an introduction/reference for those wanting to study the philosophy of simplicity. It's also a good inspirational gift for someone who wants to simplify their life. Too bad publishers don't provide little books like this for a more reasonable price.

_Philip Dru_ is an extremely obscure political tract written in 1911 by "Colonel" Edward Mandell House, a key advisor to Woodrow Wilson and FDR. This is what makes the book so shocking. The book advocates the violent overthrow of the constitutional government and proposes a communist/socialist system as its replacement. Considering that the man who wrote this book had such a close position to the president, it's no surprise that some of the ideas in this book eventually became public policy.

Philip Dru, the main character, is a West Point graduate who eventually resigns his post and becomes involved in social problems. Dru is chosen to lead an army against the U.S. government led by a puppet president. When Dru gains control he throws the Constitution out the window and nationalizes industries such as the telegraph (remember, it's 1911) and makes corporations subservient to government. He promises a job to every American, and rewrites the state constitutions. Watch for the part where Senator Selwyn talks about how he used direct marketing, etc., to get his man elected as president. Most of what he used is standard operating procedure today. In this book, the people revolt over what he does!

I give the book a low rating because the style is absolutely atrocious. Forget about any kind of character development. It is a poor attempt to wrap up a political treatise to make it palatable to the average joe. If you can get around the cruddy style, there is some gold to be found. This edition is a reprint by the John Birch Society. Give it a shot!

I find this book fairly understandable, easy to follow and a bit of interesting with good pictures!

Reading through this book is a BORE! :( Examples are almost non-existant, there's like nothing (like definitions) on the sides of the pages, and no glossary. How poorly written! Please find an alternative to learn this rather interesting subject. Thank you!
-Upset reader of this school book

Having previously read "Fundamental Financial Accounting Concepts" by the same people, this book was a disappointment. It came off as incredibly dry, and was not all that clear in its presentation of the concepts. The "Fundamental Financial Accounting" volume is great, but I'd recommend another author for the managerial book.

This has to be the absolute worst computer science book ever made. The authors repeatedly make assumptions about the readers knowledge and ability. Not only is it extremely difficult to follow, it claims to be a intorduction to C++ and is clearly beyond the scope of any begining programmer after the first four chapters.

IF YOU HAVE A CHOICE, DO NOT BUY THIS BOOK, IT IS TERRIBLE.