This book has excellent descriptions of the different dog breeds, though I would prefer more detailed descriptions. The author suggests what characteristics a suitable owner of each of the breeds should have in order for both dog and owner to have a happy relationship. If you need to choose a breed that would be good around kids or needs little grooming or could live happily in a small apartment, this would be a good book for you. I would suggest that you use it as a complement to another breed book such as The Perfect Match by Chris Walkowicz in order to get more detailed information. Which Dog for Me has excellent photos of many of the breeds, but I was disappointed to find that some breeds had no illustration included. Also absent in the descriptions is the life expectancy and specific health problems you are likely to encounter with each breed.

An autobiographical tale of a very smart man, ( who is part black / park white ) raised in the north who discovers the south in his late teen years. It is a story of discovery of the world as he learns music, hard work, love, and the dark side of life.

I didn't get the doom and gloom impression of the south from this author, however, one must remember that the author here can pass for white. However, at the end of the book, Johnson regrets not having taken part in the civil rights issues of the day and wonders if he has forsaken his race for a wife, children, and monetary success. A bit of a rushed ending, but was very informative and interesting to read.

This is a tragic book in a lot of ways. It is a reminder that America has not fullfilled her promise to all of her children. It would be great to read a book like this as an object lesson in the bigotry of the past. We have made some progress but there is still much to be done. James Weldon Johnson produced a wrenching tale. That it is somewhat autobiographical adds to the ambivalent narration. First the narrator feels shame in his heritage but then grows to accept himself and feel pride in who he is. This tells a tale that America is often loathe to hear but it is important nonetheless. The aspect of a mulatto man passing for white is sad. One should be allowed to feel pride in multiethnicity. This is a horrible stain on our culture that so many people had to live in denial of who they really were. This book is a valuable document of America's dark side. I would hope that it experiences a much deserved revival now that evidence of Jefferson's relationship with Sally Hemmings has reopened the discussion on this sad piece of our history. Read this book and weep but most of all read this book and learn.

For a book which was first published in 1912, this is an amazingly relevant work for today. Johnson's novel (hidden in the form of an autobiography) graphically looks at relations between the races in American. The nameless main character is born in the South to an African-American mother and a white Southern aristocrat. He and his mother move to Connecticut when he is very young, allowing Johnson to show us the benevolent face of pervasive racism of the United States. Johnson avoids the easy "good" vs. "evil" view of the oppressed vs. the oppressors. Instead, the narrator becomes a permanent outcast, returning to the South upon the death of his mother and then to the ragtime era New York City. The style of the novel is clear and extremely readable--and very current. The end of the novel dives deep into the issue of racism, causing both black and white readers to question their long-held assumptions about who they are and who they appear to be to others.

If you're looking for clues as to how Rehnquist will preside over the impeachment trial of Bill Clinton you'll be disappointed. In fact this book is more like a simple retelling of events than a focus on constitutional issues. Rehnquist does make the point that the acquittal of Justice Chase helped foster a judiciary independent of political litmus tests by Congress, and the acquittal of President Johnson did likewise for the executive branch, both of which Rehnquist feels are good things, but other than that you'll be hard pressed to find anything about the author's personal opinions. The narrative of the book is far too much concerned with broad historical developments which are discussed in much better detail in other sources, rather than focussing on the particulars of the impeachment trials. The material on the trials themselves probably takes up no more than a quarter of the book.

I reviewed this book for the JOURNAL OF AMERICAN HISTORY when it first appeared, and nothing that has happened in the seven years since 1992 has changed my mind. Chief Justice Rehnquist writes clearly and well, but his research and historical perspective are sadly outdated. For example, he accepts the hoary myth that there was no good reason at all to consider Andrew Johnson an appropriate target for impeachment, despite Michael Les Benedict, THE IMPEACHMENT AND TRIAL OF ANDREW JOHNSON (New York: W. W. Norton, 1973), a fine study showing that Johnson deliberately violated many Congressional civil-rights and Reconstruction statutes validly enacted over his veto, that he also sought to gut efforts to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment, and that ultimately he deliberately provoked the 1868 attempt to remove him from office. Moreover, Rehnquist's analysis of the impeachment and trial of Justice Samuel Chase fails to situate it in the context of the previous year's impeachment, conviction, and removal of U.S. District Judge John Pickering, or the larger battle between Jeffersonian Republicans and Federalists over the control of the nation's judiciary -- a context without which the Chase impeachment is all but impossible to understand. Readers seeking light on this subject should consult Richard E. Ellis, THE JEFFERSONIAN CRISIS: COURTS AND POLITICS IN THE YOUNG REPUBLIC (New York: Oxford University Press, 1971; Norton paperback, 1973).

Chief Justice Rehnquist's book extols executive and judicial independence -- unexceptional and unexceptionable positions, to be sure -- but he also implicitly denounces the actions of democratically-elected legislatures -- a position more open to question, even as it is consistent with much of his constitutional jurisprudence as shown in Sue Davis, JUSTICE REHNQUIST AND THE CONSTITUTION (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988).

Ultimately, perhaps, readers may value this book for its potential illumination of the presiding officer over the Senate's trial of President Clinton, but it adds little or nothing to our understanding of the history and law of the impeachment process. -- Richard B. Bernstein, Adjunct Professor of Law, New York Law School

It's obvious to the reader that Chief Justice Rehnquist has a good command of the subject he is discussing, which are the political and the historical implications of two very important impeachment decisions in the U.S. My only criticism was really that the book delves into a lot of history and one begins to wonder why, but then the relavence to the impeachments is made clearer as the reader progresses through the book. History enthusiasts may find it somewhat redundant in that respect, but the conclusions are well drawn and the American political system is shown for what it has always been- alive with partisanship and designed, through the constitution, to put at least a small roadblock to allowing one branch of government or party from completely dominating.

This book omits several important events in U. S. History up to 1865. But is sufficient for introductory classes in U. S. History. While it does a sufficient job as a survey source, it is not recommended for an in-depth study of any period in U. S. History. Further, Roark seems to emphasize some events that seem less important to U. S. History.

This book is very well written, quite long, though

"If this wasn't so rediculous, it'd be even funnier." -- Who Moved My Cheese

This audiobook was given to me, along with a number of other coping-with-trying-times resources, by one of my many middle managers in the midst of a merger. With an open mind I gave it a shot. What did I have to loose, except my job?

This book is an over-simplistic metaphor for unexpected change that is beyond one's control, in which "cheese" is a symbol of something you want, ie: happiness, security, financial resources. The message the authors attempt to convey is that your future, success, security, and ultimately happiness is within your control. While this may be PARTLY true, the tone of the childlike story is so condescending (an unintended byproduct of the tale's simplification, I suspect), one could easily get the feeling it was penned by the committee representing CEOs Happily Unopposed to Bad Behavior (CHUBB).

The book amplifies feelings of rejection and betrayal by the faceless "Cheese Removers". It raises many questions like, "What if I was counting on that cheese for future use", but offers no answer other than you've got to go out and find more "cheese" for yourself, even though everything you had was just taken from you for no apparent reason. To me (and many others) this was not an inspiring read. It was painful.

This book was destined to be a best seller because, no doubt, it can be ordered by the box-load by those anticipating removing others' cheese. Sure, the message is a fine one, it's the delivery that flat-out stinks.

If you or your organization fears or resists change, then this short and simple book may just help lead you and your organization to learn to embrace change. George Bernard Shaw once observed, 'Common sense is instinct. Enough of it is genius.' My instincts tell me this book was much closer to being genius than it was to just being overly simple common sense.

Johnson's clever and insightful story is about two mice ('Sniff,' who sniffs out change early, and 'Scurry,' who quickly scurries into action) and two 'little people' ('Hem,' who denies and resists change for fear of something worse, and 'Haw,' who adapts over time when he realizes change can lead to something better) who live in a maze and how they deal with the realities of unexpected changes in the location and quantity of their cheese supply. Each character represents an easy to recognize, common, stereotypical person with a common approach to changes in life. The cheese represents what a person wants in life (e.g. health, money, a good job, a strong relationship, peace of mind, etc.).

This book was an original and light-hearted approach to the complex and anxiety-filled subject of changes in life. Subtle yet powerful messages were expertly woven into the story and led me to pause, reflect on, and identify with the characters and their actions.

Johnson's style is not for everyone. If you have read any of his previous books, you will not want to miss this one. If you have never read any of Johnson's books, you may as well start with this one -- it may help change your life.

This a great work, written by a master of the modern day parable, with a foreword by another master, Ken Blanchard. The book's value is that in a very short period of time it helps the reader get in touch with an issue that is affecting us all at some level today - how we cope with change. This is one of those books that everyone should read, both to learn better how to deal with some of life's challenges, and to provide an interesting topic of discussion for cocktail parties.

Another book, just released with a testimonial by Spencer Johnson, that falls into this same category is WINNING WAYS: FOUR SECRETS FOR GETTING GREAT RESULTS BY WORKING WELL WITH PEOPLE, by Dick Lyles. Like CHEESE, it also has a foreword by Ken Blanchard, and it also deals with an issue that affects us all at some level.

Those reviewers who say these books are over-simplified miss their true beauty. The reason these books by Johnson, Blanchard and Lyles are so popular is that they highlight simple truths in ways that people can relate to them and apply them to their personal lives for personal betterment. Each book doesn't have all the answers. But then, neither do all the big fat books I've read that are more theoretical and deal with their subjects on a so-called "higher" intellectual plane.

My fervent hope is that people will read the works of these great authors and share their ideas with others for two reasons. First, so these authors will continue to produce classics like these. And second, because if more people read and apply these ideas, the better our world will be.

While the message in this book would seem obvious, not everyone takes away the same "lessons". My wife, for instance, insists that it is better to enjoy your cheese while it lasts rather than looking for new cheese all the time.

Someone else has created entire website around this subject and insists that you should resist when someone moves the cheese.

An insipid book to give to an incompetent employee before laying off.

Found it full of patronizing pap and pizzle. Offers few tips for managing change. Mostly tells you to get over it.

For those who are not familiar with the book, "Who Moved My Cheese?" is a simple parable that illustrates the natural tendency to resist change. The uncertainty that generally accompanies change in the workplace provides a level of discomfort that some try to escape. Rather than take the necessary steps for change, some employees cling to old notions and actions that produce little or no results.

Of course, it has been known for decades that people tend to avoid tasks that cause physical, mental, or emotional discomfort. Why it takes a simple little story about mice and cheese for some people to understand this is beyond me. Perhaps it provides a non-threatening, feel-good reminder of what we already know about ourselves?

The problem I see with "Who Moved My Cheese?" is not the message, but the difficulty in reducing such a simple little concept into practice. Knowing that we need to "search around the maze for new cheese" is equivalent to the stock market wizards telling us to buy low and sell high, or business experts telling us that we need to possess organizational savvy to be successful. These are things we all nod our heads in agreement with . . . but then what? We are left without any guidelines for determining when we are "moving around the maze" or simply "sitting at the cheese station."

Reading "Who Moved My Cheese?" is like signing up for the membership at the health club. It sure feels good, and it can be the start to something better, but the real work is yet to come. Read the book. Ponder its contents. But expect some discomfort if you really want to make progress.

This book in the American Presidency Series focuses not only on Andrew Johnson's presidency, but also expatiates the economic hardship that both the Union and the Confederacy faced during the Civil War, along with its political and economic repercussions. The author recognized that Johnson's battle with Congress over Reconstruction evolved into the most pivotal issue during his presidency. In fact, Albert Castel argues that Johnson lost his battle with Republicans over Reconstruction due to intransigence and impracticality with regards to African Americans. Also, this book mentions that Johnson's lack of a political base contributed to the Southerners' refusal to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment. Nonetheless, Johnson retained much of his institutional power of the presidency. Johnson's violation of the Tenure of Office Act did, however, lead to his impeachment and eventual acquittal. Nevertheless, Johnson achieved appropriations for the purchase of Alaska.

The last chapter reads: Johnson Before The Bar of History. This chapter gives a historiographical overview about Johnson's critics since his presidency until 1979. Unfortunately, Castel contradicts his own thesis when he maintains that Johnson used the presidency in a strong manner with integrity, but ultimately failed as president. Did he fail or did he represent a scapegoat for his political enemies? Nonetheless, this book elaborates on the relevant issues and explains why Johnson has been much maligned. Nevertheless, this book stimulated my interest in Johnson and provided me with a useful bibliographical essay.

The Tragic Era was considered a legitimate text book during the Depression and for many years afterward. However its historical view is pro-confederate, racist, and totally propagandistic. In this book you will find the arguement that slaves were happy and treated well, that after the Civil War the evil Northerners raped and pillaged the South unmercifully for 12 years, and that the angelic white men of the South only became racially bigoted because it was forced on them by the uppity freed slaves. This piece of trash is on the same quality level as Mein Kampf. If you want a realistic exploration of the Reconstruction period read Kenneth M. Stampp's "The Era of Reconstruction".

It has become fashionable to cheer on the Reconstruction radicals and carpetbaggers who turned what might have been a period of healing and growth into a nightmare for many dispossessed Southerners. Read this (slightly creaky) old classic for a corrective view -- one that portrays William Lloyd Garrison, Thaddeus Stevens, et al as the zealous Utopian totalitarians that they were. V.S. Naipaul would understand this book.