The Change'll Do You Good does a good job of emphasizing that post-menopausal women need to excercise in order to prevent osteoporosis and to promote good health. That's the bulk of the book. She does offer common sence tips about diet and health in general. No surprises here. The back cover of the book indicates that the "pros and cons of Hormone Replacement Therapy" will be discussed. The three page chapter on the subject, which is mostly "con", spends most of the page space commenting on the financial rewards the drug companies are receiving from the sales of HRT medications. All in all, I feel as though my money was wasted on this book, and I would recommend that you save yours.

As a Human Resource Professional, "The Change'll Do You Good" is a very enlightening and educational book. This book brings an awareness of what women experience, and how it sometimes affects the behavioral patterns in the everyday workplace. Thus, management can deal with this issue in a professional manner. I would not only recommend this book to friends, but also to Human Resource Professionals and Executive management.

This is a great book for women (and men) to read! I have not started going through menopause yet, but this book gives wonderful advice for women of all ages. It made me more aware of the changes that may occur and offered worthwhile suggestions to help me prepare for these changes without using prescription drug assistance. The suggestions are not so extreme so that anyone who wants a long, healthy, life can and should follow them.

What a great read. I enjoyed the hell out of it. I wish there were more details about his adventurous life. It seems that a great deal of the story came from Mr.Baca himself and if the way he lived his life is any indication; then the "facts" he relates must be taken with many many grains of salt. That said this book is one heckuva roller coaster ride, short but action packed leaving you thirsting for more. More! please.

Howard's concise guide to good English is by far the best volume of its type I have found. The debate over what constitutes "good" or "proper" English takes place in an arena dominated, I think, by elitist ignoramuses who seem to think the English language dropped out of the sky in perfect, immutable form. I am happy to report that Godfred Howard is most assuredly not in that camp. He treats the English language fairly, with an appropriate degree of flexibility and a solid understanding of linguistics in general.

The book takes the format of a dictionary or encyclopaedia, and covers problem-words, grammatical and syntactical "rules" and tricky issues such as unisex grammar. He does not hesitate to indicate his own preferences, but is usually careful to give leeway to variations within the English language, which reflects a good linguistic underpinning, common sense and, above all, a reality-grounded approach to English that belies the prudish and pedantic sensibilities of lesser minds who have forayed into the "proper English" debate.

Mr. Howard is a lawyer, and he points out that potential law suits have become a debilitating factor in our society. The book is filled with many poignant examples of how running scared of the lawyers causes us to suffer harm. An emergency room staff in Chicago left a man bleeding with a gunshot wound 30 feet from the door because they feared being sued by patients who already were in the ER if the staff left to bring the man in. Teachers will not give students a hug for fear of sexual harrassment suits. The governor of a state could not get a new light bulb because of civil service rules designed to avoid unfair treatment of employees and citizens. The examples are strong and will make you more sensitive to the subject.

Most of the book's content looks at education, government service, racial discrimination in companies, and bureaucratic rules everywhere. The point of reference is the current state of legal thinking, which upholds having a "neutral" judiciary that deals with disputes. Unfortunately, a lot of silly suits are started. One of my favorite examples in the book involved a dispute between two three-year-olds in a sandbox in a public park in Boston. A judge took the case and issued a temporary restraining order keeping the two kids apart. The other problem is that juries can make up ridiculous awards, both for the primary injury and for punitive damages. Everyone by now knows the story of the elderly woman who collected over $600,000 for hot coffee she spilled on herself after picking it up in a drive-through at McDonald's. But did you know about the guy whose new car had had its paint touched up, and initially got a punitive damage award of $1,000 for each car that had been touched up to paid to him?

One of the things I liked most about the book was the way Mr. Howard tied all of this in to modern ideas about how organizations work best, which is to give those on the spot lots of autonomy to make choices and use their judgment. Otherwise, you get the tyranny of looking at optimizing one area (avoiding legal suits) while suboptimizing the whole area (providing education, government services, or products to customers). He has several examples of teachers and principals who made a difference by doing what needed to be done, regardless of the potential for suits.

The book's weakness is that it basically encourages those who may be sued to take a chance anyway. You may be sued, but you will be helping. I agree that in many cases there will be no suits, but to the family who goes bankrupt as a result of an ensuing suit that advice provides little solace.

I think he is really describing a society that wants to have a chance to win the lottery -- being injured gives you a chance to get billions! Well, maybe thousands in reality. When the bulk of society wants to have that chance, you have to assume that the laws will favor providing that free run in court with a lawyer who gets paid a contigent fee.

If we are willing to give up on our "right" to win the law suit lottery, we can have a more effective society. Are we ready for that?

On the other hand, we shouldn't throw out the right to sue. Many times, there's no other remedy available.

Balancing these needs is something that we have to hope our legislators will become better at accomplishing. This book should help raise the alarm. But you will do more good by writing letters explaining your views to your legislators than this book can hope to accomplish.

Philip K. Howard's follow up to the best seller "The Death of Common Sense" is very similar to the previous work. Howard discusses how law has become an albatross to American society in may respects. This book spends a great deal of time focusing on the problems of law in the American educational system. As a veteran teacher, I can testify to the fact that many of these problems exist. However, Howard's discussions are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the legal problems of the educational system. This book restates the solution from the previous book. While it is feasible in theory, it will never happen. Overall, the book was an interesting read.

Aside from what I considered to be a weak title, everything else about the book was superlative and highly thought-provoking. It is obvious when when people were spreading the gospel of individual rights through our society, no one stopped to realize that the random and haphazard exercise of one person's individual rights often ran in direct contradiction to society's rights as a whole. As Mr. Howard says about juries for example: They are not thinking about the effect of their decision on society; they are merely thinking about the two litigants whose case they have been asked to decide. The problems created by this phenomenon are particularly evident when it comes to puntive damages. When plaintiff's lawyers urge jurors to "teach this company a lesson for their [supposedly] heinous conduct" the jurors can respond by blithely awarding tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars in punitive damages, and go to bed at night feeling that they have "served" society by their actions. And of course the great irony is that they have accomplished the exact opposite result. I don't know how much of an effect Mr. Howard's book will have. While it may not be readily apparent, the interest groups that have no interest whatsoever in adopting his suggestions--e.g. the American Bar Association, unions of all stripes and colors, libertarians (ironically) and even Congress to some extent--will act to make sure that the status quo remains the status quo. Nevertheless, I would be delighted to see all of America take his message to heart.