Ms. Franklin's book presents a simple story of a little girl's devotion to the natural environment that existed prior to the arrival of automobiles and non-renewable resource extraction in the valley that she calls home. After the monkeys leave when their habitat is reduced from tree cutting, young Dona Marta carries on a life-long personal crusade to restore the balance that existed in her childhood.

This book is filled with valuable information, but there are two problems:

1. Some of the information, or lack thereof, is outdated (it was fully updated in the most recent edition - 1996).

2. The focus of the book is somewhat narrow, although there is no indication of this fact until you read other books and understand Dr. Franklin's clinical and research interests.

That having been said, there is a wealth of excellent information regarding structural infertility causes in both women and men. Dr. Larry Lipschultz, a leader in his field, authors the best and most comprehensive chapter I have seen on male-factor infertility - this alone makes purchasing the book worthwhile!

Dr. Franklin provides detailed information regarding endometriosis, uterine abnormalities and tubal abnormalities in addition to other issues. Where this book is lacking is on matters of hormonal causes of female infertility. For example, it lacks FULL information regarding the treatment of Polycystic Ovarian Disease, instead focusing on telling women to 'just lose weight.' Many treatment options for hormonal-based infertility are not covered. Other books are much better for this purpose. (This stands to reason since Dr. Frankin is not a reproductive endocrinologist. This is a key point.)

The bottom line is this book has a lot of good information, but is best used in conjunction with other books on infertility.

I read this book before I had my first Laparoscopy and HSG. It helped me to know what to expect, and how the procedure is performed. And (! ) if I should get a disappointing diagnosis, which I did, I had it all right there in my hands. From PCOS to Endo to Adhesions, it has it all, but not everyone has it all. And for this reason I found it extremely helpful for many friends of mine who have a different diagnosis than I to give them descriptive reference. What I especially liked about the Author was his way of "looking" into his patients feelings. I wish more doctors would take that extra, yet essential time, to really know their clients.

I have lived by this book for the past three years. Instead of having the medical terms that were tossed around at my clinic visits go right over my head, this book gave me the tools to understand what was happening at all times.

Also, my husband and I were able to make informed decisions about what procedures we would be willing to go through, and those that we did not feel were right for us.

If you are looking for facts, and a way to determine if the odds for a particular course of treatment are favorable, read this book.

Robert Stinnett's thesis that the Roosevelt Administration deliberately undertook to goad the Japanese into war is not new--or even controversial. It is settled history that FDR believed that the sooner the U.S. brought its decisive weight to bear on the Axis, the sooner the war would end and, conversely, the longer the U.S. remained out of it, the longer the war would last and the greater the ultimate cost of winning it. That FDR was right was amply confirmed by events.

Stinnett's key assertion, however, is that FDR "knew" about the Pearl Harbor attack in advance and witheld the information from Admiral Kimmel and General Short in Hawaii in the hope that the assault would unite a fractious country behind a total war effort.

His proof consists of an exhaustive analysis of the records of American intercepts of Japanese military radio transmissions. Stinnett claims that U.S. cryptographers had broken all the important Japanese Navel codes well before December 7th and that the decrypted transmissions combined with radio direction findings not only enabled the Administration to know when the attack would come but where the attacking Japnese fleet was located. The standard histories of World War II hold that the U.S. did NOT crack the Japanese codes (except for the diplomatic "Purple" code) before Pearl Harbor and that, in the weeks before the attack, U.S. intelligence lost track of the Japanese fleet.

The evidence Stinnett produces simply does not support his astounding claim. 60 years after the fact, it's both easy and unfair to assemble thousands of bits of data and say that U.S. intelligence should seen the pattern at the time. But even granting that point, a clear "war warning" WAS issued to U.S. Pacific commands 10 days before the attack. True, the warning reminded Pacific military leaders that national policy was to let the Japanese "fire the first shot", but it also stated that this policy "...should not be construed as restricting you to a course of action that might jeopardize your defense." There is no way that message can be squared with Stinnett's claims. The fact is that Kimmel and Short were negligent---MacArthur was even more negligent and should have been cashiered instead of being made a hero. One can grant that U.S. intelligence was poorly coordinated and should have understood more than it did, but for Stinnett to use his 20/20 hindsight to accuse FDR of deliberately permitting the Pearl Harbor attack is appalling. It isn't even logical. Stinnett himself concedes that FDR actually wanted to go to war with Germany. How could FDR have imagined that a Japanese attack in Hawaii would bring the U.S. into war with Germany? It took Hitler's greatest blunder to accomplish that. Are we to believe FDR not only had foreknowledge but clairvoyance as well?

Heartily recommended, though following all the notes will make it tough going at times.

Robert Stinnett has written an important book on American preparations leading up to the attack on Pearl Harbor 7 Dec 1941. His massive evidence, though circumstantial in large part, suggests an intentional effort to hamstring Adm Kimmell and Gen Short and then to punish them after the fact.

Nowadays, it's almost beyond dispute that FDR had a secret policy to provoke Japan into war, but with Japan committing the first over act. Adm Kemp Tolley has described his own experience in executing one element of this unacknowledged policy at a tactical level. Mr. Stinnett provides evidence of this policy in Washington (ONI, CNO, and presumably FDR.) This book challenges much conventional wisdom about the attack. For example, the Japanese attack fleet did not maintain radio silence. The U.S. authorities (but not Kimmell and Short) were quite aware of the Japanese navy's spy in the Honolulu consulate. The British probably supplied to Americans decrypted messages warning Japanese commanders of the date and place of attack.

It suggests that Adm Kimmell was ordered not to patrol north of Oahu, and that Gen Short was given misleading orders to focus on sabotage when his superiors in Washington had reason to expect an air raid. It implicates Gen Marshall in the post-war coverup.

One wonders why the federal government continues to withhold documents on this subject nearly sixty years later. It feeds conspiracy theorists.

After the first reading, it was still unclear to me whether Cdr Rochefort deliberately withheld radio intelligence from Adm Kimmell.

One hopes that the author will clean up the many small but annoying typographical errors in this book for readers of the next printing. E.g.: a footnote is missing; another note has a nonsensical equivalence of mph to meters; and misspelled words. These undermine the credibility of this important book.

Mr. Stinnett's book contains valuable documentation showing that the U.S. had decrypted both diplomatic and military codes of Japan. As a result, Stinnett shows that FDR not only knew of the coming attack on Pearl, but he ensured its success by clearing the northern Pacific of U.S. Navy reconnaissance vessels. Further, he arranged communications so that Admiral Kimmel would not be informed of the approaching Japanese fleet -- thus setting him up to "take the fall" for the attack. That FDR would adopt such a course of action is not surprising when one considers his betrayal of his closest associates -- not least of whom was his own Vice President Wallace (in the 1944 election) in favor of Truman. Remember that he kept assuring Wallace even as he solicited Truman. Further, his attempts to ignore information about Stalin's actions in the Ukraine (starvation of 10 million) and to suppress information about the Katyn massacre of Polish soldiers by Stalin -- this time so that he would not alienate Polish-American voters -- bear further witness to his lack of character if a course of action would help him obtain a goal. Stinnett claims that FDR sought war against Germany and that he could do this by provoking war with Japan. This claim is supported in two ways: First, FDR was aware of an intercepted diplomatic message between the Japanese ambassador and Von Ribbentrop, the German foreign minister. In the message, Von Ribbentrop states that Germany would join Japan immediately if Japan went to war with the U.S. Furthermore, FDR's cabinet member, Harold Ickes has stated: "For a long time I've believed our best entrance into the war would be [via] Japan...which will inevitably lead to war against Germany." This clearly answers the objection of many -- and a correct one if one does not consider the agreement just described -- that Germany did not otherwise seek war with the U.S.
Furthermore and not surprisingly, many critics of this book who post at this site prefer to use illogical and emotional attacks instead of reason. For example, simply to call something a "conspiracy theory" is not enough to damn Mr. Stinnett's book. In children's circles, this is simply called "name-calling." In adult circles and in debate, this kind of thinking is usually dismissed for what it is -- as an example of either: (1) card stacking since it seeks to prevent consideration of "inconvenient" information or (2) an appeal to the gallery, which seeks to capitalize on the prejudices, ignorance, or preconceptions of the hearers without addressing Stinnett's content at all. This type of statement should immediately remove from serious consideration the opinion of those who offer it because a sneer is not an argument. It is the very same type of behavior used by the pope when he instructed Galileo Galilei to deny what he saw when he looked through his telescope and observed a number of celestial phenomena that did not correspond to the "approved" facts of the time. Critics of this book would -- at another time -- have insisted upon a flat earth.

I'm still reading this book, the first one in this series that I've read. It seems to be accurate in its historical details, and the mystery itself is intriguing. But the incredibly annoying thing about it is the narrator's constant and continual references to past occurences in the series. I might have given it higher mark but for that.

This was the first book of Hall's that I have read. I enjoyed most the historic aspect of this story, the details of a time gone by. I found the cast of characters likable enough, and I like the author's choice of using a famous historical figure as a protagonist. In this book, Ben Franklin embarks upon a trip to Bath, England, running into some shady characters along the way. At one point or another along the way, you are led to question the integrity of almost all the people involved leaving you, the reader, to figure out who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. Definitely a good read if you want to become absorbed in a good book, but don't want anything too heavy.

I know this is supposed to be a 'historical novel' about the famous Franklin Expedition but the author should at least stick to known facts. He has Graham Gore alive until about the last page when he in fact was dead before the trek to Back's Fish River began. Also, Francis Rawdon Moira Crozier - the only true Polar expert in the entire expedition - is portrayed constantly as the bad guy. Captain Crozier had been to the Arctic numerous times with Parry and to the Antarctic with Ross so he had experience in any ice condition. Sir James Clark Ross thought highly of him and called him his 'tried and trusty friend'. John Irving of the Terror wrote his sister how much he liked 'my Skipper'. Sir John Franklin only wanted to lead the expedition because of his political troubles in Tasmania and he was trying to heal his wounded pride. Captain Crozier had, in fact, commanded the Terror during Ross' Antartic expedition and conned his ship through many dangers. I can't understand why Fitzjames is made out to be the big hero when in fact he got where he was because of his friendship with Sir John Barrow's son. If you want to read an outstanding 'historical novel' about this famed expedition, then buy NORTH WITH FRANKLIN: THE LOST JOURNALS OF JAMES FITZJAMES by John Wilson. For the actual historical story itself (not a novel), you can't do any better than ARCTIC GRAIL by Pierre Berton, BARROW'S BOYS by Fergus Fleming and the 2 books by David C. Woodman (by far the best of them all): UNRAVELLING THE FRANKLIN MYSTERY and STRANGERS AMONG US. Don't waste your money buying THE BROKEN LANDS - I'm sorry I did.

The quest for the NorthWest Passage has always fascinated me. Reading accounts of Nansen, Frobisher and Hudson fuelled my early love for adventure and the North.

Broken Lands does not disappoint. This novel tells of an expedition into the Canadian North by the "Lion of the North," Sir John Franklin. The research that author Robert Edric must have done is showcased in the detailed account of the effects of extreme cold on the expedition's ships and sailors. He gives the North a distinct character in Broken Lands: one of a harsh, merciless adversary.

The characters are believable and the story is captivating. the descriptions of the Arctic are evocative and powerful. Edric writes for his audience. The combination of personal struggle and taut action makes Broken Lands immensely readable.

The Franklin expedition may not have happened exactly as Edric presents it, but after reading Broken Lands, it certainly feels possible. An excellent fictional supposition of what the expedition was like.

Particularly when compared to the classic Prosser & Keaton, it is pretty clear that this text is geared toward tort "reform." There are long excerpts from law review articles written by the authors (how modest.) Conservative points of view are offered without "alternatives." The history of torts in the common law is rather distorted, particularly regarding strict liability which these authors present like it is a surprising new invention. The Products Restatement is overemphasized. And too many cases that come out aberrantly for the defense are included. If nothing else deters you from registering for the class that uses this book, consider how you would feel about a book called "Tax Law and Alternatives" or "Contract Law and Alternatives." This is law school folks. The alternatives are Med School and B-School. As long as you're in law school please try to find out what the law is. What somebody thinks it should be is all well and good, but it is not helpful to present "alternatives" as thought they are the current state of tort law.

You will most likely not buy this book for fun but because your 1st year law professor tells you to. Most parts of the book are very dry and it takes a long time to read it properly. The cases are good, standard Tort cases. The most helpful explanations can be found in the Notes and Questions. While the book is dry bordering on boring, the Notes and Questions at the end of each chapter will give you a much better understanding of the information. Franklin and Rabin deal with physical injuries, non-physical harm, causation, trespass and liability.

Not a great reference book, which it doesn't pretend to be. Very much a standard text book to be used for first year Tort Law.

Arthur Schlessinger theorized that every thirty years, the political pendulum swings between the left and right wings. No surprise then, that nearly 60 years after his death, there has been a slew of books slamming Franklin Delano Roosevelt's wartime leadership. No surprise, either, is that this book is published by University of Missouri press, since Robert Ferrell goes out of his way to all but directly state that Missourian Harry Truman saved the world from the sick and incompetent FDR.

Ferrell's thesis is that FDR's poor health made him largely ineffective during his last year. His doctors had recommended four-hour work days. Ferrell fails to note that FDR largely ignored his doctors mandates, and continued to submit himself to a punishing schedule which included exhausting summit trips, numerous press conferences, and a re-election campaign. He arbuably worked harder that the physically healthier George W. Bush, and may have worked himself literally to death.

Ferrell's credibilty is obliterated by the ridiculous statement that FDR was nearly as incapacitated as was Woodrow Wilson in 1920. Wilson was a near vegetable following his stroke. But anyone who has read the minutes of the Yalta conference--which I doubt Ferrell has--will realize that despite his physical condition, FDR remained mentally sharp.

There is no denying that FDR was in poor physical shape during his last 15 months in office. He suffered from congestive heart failure and high blood pressure. Ferrell also presents the theory, neither denying nor endorsing it, that FDR may have had melanoma and/or stomach cancer, but there is no evidence for that. What were the root causes of FDR's decline? Common sense points to diet and excercise. FDR's diet during the white house years left much to be desired. For example, the President breakfasted every morning on scrambled eggs and bacon. Of course, in the 1940s far less was known about the dangers of cholesterol that today. Despite his paralysis, FDR tried to remains physically active and healthy by swimming daily. (His correspondence with Daisy Suckley indicates that he was mildly preoccupied with his weight, and he tended to "yo-yo" in weight during his first two terms in office.) As the war made greater demands on his time, he abandoned his excercise routine, which was accompanied by weight gain, loss of upper body muscle tone, and increasing blood pressure.

There is no doubt, also, that FDR husbanded his strength during his last year. He concentrated his work on two overriding goals: 1) Allied victory in World War II, with the greatest possible speed, and the smallest possible loss of Allied soldiers (four of whom were his own sons). 2) The creation of the United Nations as a means of preventing a Third World War, which FDR knew humanity would not survive.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt was successful on both counts.

I couldn't help but contrast this book with the Bishop book, 'FDR's Last Year'. This writer paints FDR as someone and something far different than I've read in many, many other books. He most certainly was ill, he had poor medical care, and possibly he deceived the nation about his true condition. However, he also provided the nation with reassuring leadership and contributed to our war effort literally until his death. This book is poorly organized, but worse, is mean-spirited. Definitely a 'pass'.

Some have written that Ferrell's work is sloppy and depressing. I disagree. Ferrell does an excellent job of showing 21st Century readers just how different this country was 50 years ago. That the entire country could look at Roosevelt during his last run for office - and know that he was a dying man - and not know it at the same time, is amazing. This is the same country that couldn't deal directly with a President in a wheel chair. The country knew it, but didn't know it, all at the same time. How different was the relationship between the press and the White House!

The purpose of this book is not simply to drive home the point that Roosevelt was a dying man when he ran for a fourth term. The point of this book is about collective denial. The fact that most of the country suffered from it, used it, and both benefitted from it in some ways, and paid for it in others. Collective denial isn't much different from individual denial. It is a powerful mechanism that existed not only in the relationship between FDR and the country, but between FDR and himself. It also is the mechanism that allowed the United States to fight WWII to "make the world safe for democracy," while at the same time the country was somehow unaware of its own racist, anti-democratic values. Ferrell's book should be read within the context of the times, so that it may shed light on ours.

This could have been a great book. The story of a daring attempt to find polar explorer Sir John Franklin (analogous in importance today to finding lost astronauts) based on the personal journal of an officer in the rescue expedition's company, R. R. Carter. So many interesting aspects could have been explored: the collegial but competitive feeling between the ill-equipped US expedition and the advanced Royal Navy counterpart; the escapist focus polar exploration enjoyed on the eve of the Civil War; Carter's personal evolution. Instead, the author merely wraps Carter's Spartan journal in a perfunctory introduction & summary. Drama aside, this is no scholarly reference either. Not one map to help the poor reader trace the expedition's progress; no helpful amplifying commentary that could have helped the reader put Carter's often esoteric colloquial references into context. A work of FICTION (Yoyage of the Narwhal, Barrett) is a more interesting and scholarly work about this subject.

This could have been a great book. The story of a daring attempt to find polar explorer Sir John Franklin (analogous in importance today to finding lost astronauts) based on the personal journal of an officer in the rescue expedition's company, Randolph Carter. So many interesting aspects could have been explored: the collegial but competitive feeling between the ill-equipped US expedition and the advanced Royal Navy counterpart; the escapist focus polar exploration enjoyed on the eve of the Civil War; Carter's personal evolution. Instead, the author merely wraps Carter's Spartan journal in a perfunctory introduction & summary. Drama aside, this is no scholarly reference either. Not one map to help the poor reader trace the expedition's progress; no helpful amplifying commentary that could have helped the reader put Carter's often esoteric colloquial references into context. A work of FICTION (Yoyage of the Narwhal, Barrett) is a more interesting and scholarly work about this subject.