This is an excellent book! I used it in one of my classes in college. It really gives insight into daily details of the lives of the Etruscans, which also helps you to understand the Romans better. Very well written, by good scholars.

I actually haven't read this book yet but it is written by my Greek and Roman Mythology professeur. He's an amazing man. He knows so much about the subject that I'm sure this is a great book.

This book is a beautiful and simple way to read about Jesus' life. Great for people who find it hard to follow the Bible and also for those who need a fresh look at the life of Jesus.

All of the Girzone books I have read are wonderful. So refreshing and uplifting. Also, easy to read and understand.

I highly recommend this book.

Having read all of Fr. Girzone's other books, I thirst for each of his new offerings. This book did not disappoint me. His ability to inject warmth and a personal perspective transform the Gospels from a more historical context to making the reader feel as though they were part of a beautiful story.

Anyone who has felt a bit arm's length when reading Scripture will find that they are welcomed into God's story as part of it. Fr. Girzone's writings continue to help bring my God closer to me.....and for that I thank him.....eternally.

Lowell Rinker

It is a wonderful read! The story of Jesus pooled together by Fr. Girzone and the Friends of Jesus, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. A smooth telling of the life of Jesus that allows one who is a "beginner" or "expert" of the Gospels to envision the life of Jesus through a flowing account.

In Libra, Delillo deals with one of the most well-known and well-documented events in recent history. The volumes of information, of images, of rumor, of intrigue dominate the story of JFK's assassination. Wisely, Delillo chooses to focus on a more peripheral and much less understood individual, Lee Harvey Oswald. There are so many contradictions in the case for and against Oswald. Was he alone? Was he innocent? Was he part of a team? These questions slide into obscurity as Delillo reconstructs Lee Harvey Oswald/O. H. Lee/A. J. Hidell/William Bobo. The inconsistent Oswald.

The book unfolds with alternating chapters between two narratives of the past, and one in the present [1988]. One of the pasts is Oswald's life starting as an adolescent boy in the Bronx, which eventually collides with the other, beginning in April 1963 as a group of disenfranchised former CIA men decide to create a plot to make an attempt on the President. They do not intend to kill him. Shoot and miss is the plan. But as Delillo famously says, "Plots carry their own logic. There is a tendency of plots to move toward death." So here we have a postmodern explanation for the mystique of conspiracy theory. There isn't an ordered lattice of events and characters, conducted by a deliberate intelligence. There is chaos, only ordered by a downward tendency toward death and destruction. It's Chaos Theory applied to human and political systemms.

Libra is also Delillo's most accessible book, at least in the context of the others I have read, (all but Underworld, The Names, and Mao II). Unlike White Noise, the people in Libra seem somewhat real. They are not totally so for that would mean that we understand them, which we don't. Delillo always creates fractured, composite views of his characters. We get glimpses, often contradictory, into their past and their intentions. Maybe it's because I have read a lot of his work, but Delillo's philosophic statements, if you can even call them that, are much more connected to the narrative here than in his other work. For example, Nicholas Branch, in the present day narrative, is a contemporary CIA analyst poring over all the data on the assassination. At one point he begins examining the physical evidence. There are so many abstractions and difficulties in this investigation that the presence of real objects provides a glimpse of something like truth. "The Curator sends the results of ballistics tests carried out on human skulls and goat carcassess, on blocks of gelatin mixed with horsemeat...They are saying, 'Look, touch, this is the true nature of the event. Not your beautiful ambiguities.'" These sections contain some of the most poignant and valuable insight in any of Delillo's work I have seen.

Libra is an interesting, if somewhat complicated work that both illuminates and obscures the character of Lee Harvey Oswald. This isn't as frustrating an experience as it might sound. By the novel's conclusion it would be cheap to wrap up such a sad and desolate story with niceties and tidy endings.

Not being a major scholar in the conspiracies and ideas bouncing around about the Kennedy assassination, I have absolutely no idea how factual Delillo is being in this book as concerned with major figures, events, etc. And I really don't care. The only thing that I used when deciding whether I liked the book or not is whether it entertained me and made me think. And it sure did. Delillo presents another version of the famed assassination, focusing more on the mind and manners of one Lee Harvey Oswald and how he might have got sucked into a conspiracy to kill the President. Or something. As the book starts out, the goal is to not kill the President but to make it seem like someone is trying so that everyone will blame the Cubans (the Bay of Pigs invasion still fresh in everyone's mind). From there, things get . . . strange. The plot flips back and forth from Oswald and how he goes about his short life (his mother gets most of the best monologues) from America to Russia and back again, all the while interspersing it with the various characters who interacted and might have had something to do with the assassination. Which makes everything confusing and earlier portions of the book slow, as you're trying to figure out just where this is all going. However, this is a slow burning intense book, where the suspense leading up to the action is longer than the event itself. Delillo uses his masterful command of the English language to craft an insular paranoid world for the reader, without going nutty with conspiracies, he puts forward a fictional version of how things might have happened and makes you believe it. Everyone is drawn three dimensionally, including Oswald, who is seen as more of a tragic figure but at the same time knows exactly what he's doing and how people will perceive him forever. Delillo's writing is full of surprising phrases, just when you think he's dipping into the waters of Hemmingway and not being that descriptive, he throws out seemingly random comments that make everything fall into place perfectly, or turn everything on its head and make you reconsider. By the end, his writing has been polished to a spare, desolate beauty and ending of the book is one of the most touching I've read in a while. With the events of that grim day in November already spelled out for everyone, Delillo's makes it his task to make you know the people (perhaps) and he passes that with flying colors. If you can keep the time lines (he mucks things up even more by throwing in some guy who is researching the assassination for the CIA years later) and the people straight, you'll have a grand time. Whether you think it was a lone gunman or an army of them, you won't go wrong with this book.

Don Delillo is one of the best American writers out there. In Libra, his ninth novel, reflects on one of the most tragic and memorable events in US history: the assassination of John F. Kennedy. He turns his assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, into the protagonist by reflecting upon his troubled life, and an antagonist for obvious reasons. Many conspiracies and coincidences are made evident by Delillo, like Oswald's life in the USSR and the FBI's involvement w/ Oswald, and JFK. It all leads to the focal point of the entire book, though it is predictable since we all know what happens. It leaves you in suspense throughout the entire book and it is very exciting and well-written.

This book is written for a broad audience and aimed at exploring one of the oldest and most persistent problems in American history; the proper role of the Federal Government. Simon frames this book as a conflict between Jefferson, representing those who supported a weaker central government and emphasized the importance of individual states, and John Marshall, the great Chief Justice who led the Supreme Court to establish its critical role as arbiter of constitutional questions. The Marshall court's work strengthened the importance not only of the Supreme Court but of the Federal Government in general. This is not a new story, indeed, most of what Simon describes is the standard understanding of this period of our history. Simon is a good writer who describes the politics and legal issues quite well. His description and analysis of the behavior of the Marshall court is shrewd, emphasizing Marshall's careful attention to both politics and crucial legal issues. For example, it is clear that Marshall worked very hard to maintain unanimity among the justices, even for difficult decisions. Similarly, many of his important decisions were crafted to simultaneously achieve the goal of establishing his brand of moderate Federalism while avoiding inflammatory political consequences. Readers will finish this book with an increased appreciation for Marshall's considerable intellect and remarkable political skills. Beyond this, the book is disappointing in terms of explaining the wellsprings of these conflicts and important aspects of the debate. I think the emphasis on the rivalry between Jefferson and Marshall, which Simon probably chose as a framing device, actually tends to limit understanding of the nature of this conflict. While I respect Simon's desire to produce a relatively concise and accessible book, some aspects deserve enlargement. For example, Jefferson found the Court's tendency to rely on Common Law traditions irksome, believing the Court should have been more deferential to the wished of state legislatures. Does this represent a conflict between individuals like Jefferson whose primary intellectual influences came from the British Enlightenment versus a legal culture that grew up in the shadow of the great British Common Law theorists? To what extent did individual experience of the Revolution influence subsequent political positions? Jefferson spent the war as governor of Virginia or abroad. Marshall, in contrast, was an officer in the Continental Army and experienced in very concrete ways the inadequacies of the confederation government that preceded the establishment of our present constitution. This book is a good point of departure for individuals unfamiliar with this period of our history but further reading will be needed for anyone who really wishes to understand our early history. I recommend the The Age of Federalism by Elkins and McKitrick, a superb treatment of the Federalist period, as a starting point.

The world needs a book about John Marshall's contribution to America. In my opinion, "What Kind Of Nation" by James F. Simon is it. Though the nature of the subject almost guarantees that the reading will be somewhat dry, scholarly, and lawyerlike, the author did a nice job with it. As a scholar myself, I recommend it. If you're looking for an easy read on Thomas Jefferson, I also recommend Norman Thomas Remick's excellent book "West Point: Character Leadership Education, A Book Developed From Thomas Jefferson's Readings And Writings", in which West Point is posited as a metaphor for Jefferson's worldview of the way America ought to be.

On a recent vacation to Colonial Williamsburg and Monticello, my 14-year-old nephew commented that Thomas Jefferson didn't get along with Alexander Hamilton. The four adults accompanying him replied patronizingly that Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr certainly didn't get along, but didn't remember anything between Hamilton and Jefferson...

Of course, my nephew was absolutely correct. In an effort to rectify my obvious educational deficiency, I immediately embarked on a reading plan which led me to "What Kind of Nation", where I discovered that Thomas Jefferson also didn't along with John Marshall, the fourth Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

By the time I got to this book I had a pretty good feel for the politics of the period, having read "Founding Brothers" by Joseph Ellis, "Founding Father: Rediscovering George Washington" by Richard Brookhiser, "Alexander Hamilton: American" by Richard Brookhiser and "James Madison" by Garry Wills. I believe this background helped me to maximize my enjoyment of "What Kind of Nation" because I was able to focus on Marshall's brilliance and perseverance in establishing the authority of the Supreme Court on an equal footing with the executive and legislative branches of the federal government. Jefferson's antics were amusing, but old news. The way that Marshall dealt with Jefferson who was, after all, the President of the United States during the first 8 years of Marshall's 34 years as Chief Justice, is fascinating.

James Simon does a great job of telling the story without getting overly technical with the legal side of things. I think he strikes just the right balance, so that the lay reader (i.e., non-lawyer) can appreciate the significance of Marshall's extraordinary accomplishments.

Bibby has written a solid book on political parties, their function in current elections and how their role has changed over time.

Political parties used to be much more of a central focus in American elections. Ususlly, political registration was a sure indicator for election outcomes and the blessing of the local party a prerequisite for a shot at political office. Not anymore. Reforms and changes in the 1970s eviscerated political parties as dominant actors in the process. They are still a force to be reckoned with, but in many locals less important than personal political organizations that have sprung up around candidate focused electoral machines.

Bibby looks at this transformation as a chronicler and explains the changes as well as current practices. A student of political parties and their role will find this book useful.

I'm teaching a course in elective politics at the University of Pennsylvania's Fels Center of Government. This is a book I considered assigning for required reading for the course and is used by some other teachers in the field at colleges and universities around the country. I chose not to list the book because my course is focused on the art and practices of actually getting elected, which Bibby's book is not.

That's not to say this book doesn't have it's place. It's just not meant to be a guide to getting elected or to working within your own local political party. For an academic look at the subject, it will do the job.

"Profiles in Courage" does not belong to any of my preferred genres. I became interested in it after researching John Quincy Adams. The film "Amistad" started me down this path and eventually led to JFK's Pulitzer Prize winning book. It was written while he was still a Senator and focuses, for the most part, on historic politicians. Kennedy obviously admired these men, not for their great successes but for the personal price they all paid as a result of choosing to do what they felt was right.

Each man gets at most a chapter, and so Kennedy limited himself to one or two important events in their political careers, often their last stand. Not only are these men admirable but they are also very real. He manages to show us the human, less than perfect, side of each while convincing us of their moral strength. Each chapter leaves you wanting to know more about these men, who helped to shape American history.

The nice part about the book, and probably the key reason it won a Pulitzer, is that each event reads like a thriller. These are interesting stories and because Kennedy wrote them in chronological order with a few historic segues, the whole thing holds together to give us a better feel for the sweep of history. We willingly learn about the underlying currents that can inexorably drive a country in a certain direction.

"Profiles in Courage," is an easy read that teaches as it entertains. Kennedy seems to be encouraging us to look back at a past where "politician" was not a dirty word and in so doing, we are left with the suspicion that Kennedy himself, was trying to live up to those outmoded ideals. Knowing his fate, every word seems to have a poignant aura that makes it all the more memorable.

Kennedy has proven time and time again that his writting is impecable. I understand he went through a large ordeal with this book where he was accused of having the volume ghost-written for him, but if you read his other works you can tell this is a false accusation.
Profiles in Courage tells stories of a different kind of courage, a political courage many of our present Senators and politicians lack. If this book is not mandatory for your college or high school studies, then all students and lovers of history should seek this book and take advantage of its wonderful stories and great writing.

The book changed the course of my life and I highly recommend it, especially for high school students. The book has always been recognized from its well-known author, the late John F. Kennedy. I doubt that he is the true author of the book, but it does not make a difference because the book definitely changed my life. To Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, Sam Houston, Thomas Hart Benton, John Quincy Adams and many other remarkable politicians - it is a history book in itself. Most students will not take much pleasure in reading this book, but in a select few - it will simply open new doors of information and knowledge. It plainly lays out a short history of American politicians that went against the mainstream for the betterment of the country. But these men were not saints, but politicians voting what they thought was the right thing to do. "Profiles in Courage" is an enjoyable book that introduces you to important characters in American politics and get a sense of American history that is ignored in your history book. I found the book extraordinarily inspiring that I wanted to be a history teacher. I am right now a second year student at Indiana State University majoring in History. I recommend this book to people that want to learn "a little bit" about American political history.