This book is a thorough but readable study of the book of Ruth. It pays close attention to the details of the text, including issues of language and cultural background, yet it's also strong on theological matters, which won't be true of many commentaries on Ruth.

Hubbard argues that the most likely setting of the book is from the early monarchy during the reign of David or somewhat soon thereafter. His exploration of the obscure practices that may lie behind this book (kinsman-redeemer, Levirate marriage, etc.) are fascinating and thorough, yet he isn't dogmatic on every issue, realizing the difficulties in understanding all the details.

Overall, his careful drawing out of the message in this book about God's providence and loving covenant care and the significant effect people will have if they display the same for others is well done.

This is a book designed to take teachers into the domains of linguists and anthropologists. A series of essays, this volume provides a compilation of information garnered by researchers in these fields. The realm of this reader examines how language is developed in children and changes over time, and how we use it to communicate and learn. The text is organized into three parts: Historical Perspectives and Landmark Studies, Talk in Schools, and Sociocultural and Personal Perspectives. This book is a must for teachers.

This book is thought provoking and stimulating reading for those interested in genetics. Ms. Hubbard lays bare the medical establishment's incestuous culture that self-affirms even the most absurd genetic concepts.

This book illuminates for us some of the problems with genetic testing within our medical system, for example, she says, 'the predictive significance of genetic information is often exaggerated or misstated'.

Many people, have been and will be, discriminated against because they have genetic markers or they allegedly have a predisposition to certain diseases. Yet Ms. Hubbard explains that we are not simply our genes but 'an interplay between numbers of genetic and environmental factors'. She covers predictive tests and their downfalls, genes and behavior.

This book is about real objective science and it is sure to give you a heavy dose of reality and a new perspective on the human genome project, and all the tests and products that come of it. Also of note, her son Elijah Wald has written an essay on gay genes, in this book, which is also included in the book they wrote together, Exploding the Gene Myth. Read this book if you are interested in genetic testing, women's health, genetic discrimination, sexism and sociobiology, and/or racism.

This is definately a book for teachers, but it is definately one that we can use -- especially for us beginners who seem to make one mistake after another.

The concept is simple -- some of our most famous teachers, the folks who wrote the books we read in college about how to be wonderful teachers, will own up to some of the mistakes they've made. Some mistakes are big, some small. Some are heartbreaking and others are funny. But most importantly, they simply ARE.

New teachers (and experienced) are going to make mistakes. We're human. But we try awfully hard not to and tend to get down when we do. These stories say to us, in the words of a popular science fiction tale, "we are not alone." And, perhaps, from some of them we get ideas of how to move on with our lives and careers after we've made some of those really doozy mistakes.

This collection of short tales is ideal for keeping in your desk or by the chair at home for those times of doubt when you need a pick-me-up.

Ruth Hubbard uses the rhetoric of exaggeration to try to convince us to abandon genetic research. But if genes didn't matter then monkeys could talk and if environment didn't matter then we wouldn't have schools. Obviously they BOTH matter.

Let us use the objective methods of science to document the specifics of what is genetically determined and what is environmentally determined.

Any serious AIDS researcher knows that without genetic research we have no chance of defeating AIDS. Obviously we need to study genetics to maintain progress against disease.

Hubbard does deserve credit for throwing some skepticism on "the next big thing" in science, genetic technology. Unfortunately, she combines her skeptical analysis with her hopelessly egalitarian political views, obscuring any positive contributions this book could have. Hubbard goes through every expected cliche - Nazi imagery (social pundits never tire of this), playing the "race card, and discouraging scientific progress as "unneccessary". Read this book only if you wish to glimpse the future of awful politically-correct rhetoric.

Dr. Hubbard gives her readers much to think about, and she backs up everything she's written. She explains how the popularly-held reductionist view of genetics does not tell the whole story. Her book explains how the public often only hears one side of the story when it comes to the potential of the latest genetic technologies.

The editor, Andrew Ross, describes this book as "an expanded edition" of a special issue of the journal "Social Text". Potential readers should be warned however that it is also an expurgated edition, from which Alan Sokal's celebrated parody of of recent socio-cultural jargon has been suppressed. One understands Professor Ross's chagrin at the cruel and unusual joke that Professor Sokal practised on him. However, the unadvertised deletion of Sokal's contribution is a hoax on the buyers of "Science Wars" who naturally expect to find in it the one item of the original publication that has received worldwide attention.

The subsequent reviewer found the current tome missing in scholarship, merely by not having reprinted Sokal's piece from the social text issue of the same name (science wars). If one cared to read through the book, however, one would notice a number of quite specific reasons for this: among these that the book is meant as a counter argument to Sokal, Levitt & Gross's readings of their fave foe: pomos and other dangerous 'leftists' (what does this mean?). It is no secret that these authors are fired by a profound hostility and unwillingness to engage with the material with which they are dealing. This has already been shown ad nauseam in the litterature (see for instance Callon's review in social studies of science). Nevertheless this book stands as a nice response to some of the worst nonsense that has come out of the sokal/gross tradition. Specifically one should not miss Hart's devastating analysis of Gross et al's 'scientific neutrality' and their analytical abilities in Higher Superstition. Other pieces such as Mike Lynch's are good too; some however, are merely perpetuating the current stand off in a nasty 'war' (among these both of Ross's pieces). So is this review, I presume. That said, I should stop. Read both sides before you judge, you might get to know a good bit about rhetorical wars from the putatively neutral and objective scientists (sokal, gross, koertge etc).

The editor, Andrew Ross, describes this book as "an expanded edition" of a special issue of the journal "Social Text". Potential readers should be warned however that it is also an expurgated edition, from which Alan Sokal's celebrated parody of of recent socio-cultural jargon has been suppressed. One understands Professor Ross's chagrin at the cruel and unusual joke that Professor Sokal practised on him. However, the unadvertised deletion of Sokal's contribution is a hoax on the buyers of "Science Wars" who naturally expect to find in it the one item of the original publication that has received worldwide attention.

The subsequent reviewer found the current tome missing in scholarship, merely by not having reprinted Sokal's piece from the social text issue of the same name (science wars). If one cared to read through the book, however, one would notice a number of quite specific reasons for this: among these that the book is meant as a counter argument to Sokal, Levitt & Gross's readings of their fave foe: pomos and other dangerous 'leftists' (what does this mean?). It is no secret that these authors are fired by a profound hostility and unwillingness to engage with the material with which they are dealing. This has already been shown ad nauseam in the litterature (see for instance Callon's review in social studies of science). Nevertheless this book stands as a nice response to some of the worst nonsense that has come out of the sokal/gross tradition. Specifically one should not miss Hart's devastating analysis of Gross et al's 'scientific neutrality' and their analytical abilities in Higher Superstition. Other pieces such as Mike Lynch's are good too; some however, are merely perpetuating the current stand off in a nasty 'war' (among these both of Ross's pieces). So is this review, I presume. That said, I should stop. Read both sides before you judge, you might get to know a good bit about rhetorical wars from the putatively neutral and objective scientists (sokal, gross, koertge etc).