Today we are dealing with families and aging parents. When a parent becomes ill with no hope we may consider physican assisted suicide. This story is about a family that deals with right and wrongs of assisting a beloved member of the family to die with dignity and the turmoils of life with other family members. Easy reading and a very good story. Check it out.

This book form the otherwise excellent Great Philosophers Series suffers from being inaccessible or uninteresting to anyone who was not already well acquainted with his writing. I was looking forward to reading about Locke's contractarian philosophy and its influence on the founding of the United States, but alas this was nowhere to be found. Even I, who has read evey book in this series, had a tough time ploughing through this entry.

This are great works important in the history of political philosophy. But this particular edition does not give as many footnotes as it should, to explain refrences to Classical literature, and certain Latin phrases that students of today may not be familiar with. Still, it combiners three influentional political essays in one covenient volume.

Duane Locke of Tampa, Florida, has made the jump from hard copy to cyberspace as successfully as any poet. Roll the search engines and you will be amazed at the sheer abundance of what they sniff out.

WW was published in 1995 a few years before Locke began to float his work on our screens. This book reveals a man who is a true master at the art of imagistic poetry. Many of the poems like "Trestle," "White Tree by the Gulf," and "The Dwarf" deliver a solid concrete image in every line. The rhythm and language are also strong.

On the other hand, this book contains poems that though well-written and intellectual in nature are just not interesting. Beyond this, there are a few like "The End of Something" and "Love in the Eighties" that are self-absorbed and arrogant. These poems, so typical of the kind of academic drivel that has driven readers away from the genre, greatly detract from the effect of this book. Locke is clearly a genius, and with his vast experience in both academia and the arts, should know better.

Fortunately, Locke finishes strong with a final series of poems which return the reader to his best image-driven work.

The poor, repetitious writing may be due to the fact that there was a "group effort" preparing and writing the book. There are a lot of good insights comparing the "old economy" labor force and the "new economy" labor force. The reader, however, must perservere to get through the repetition and disorganization. There are few short but interesting case studies in Chapter 3, and lots of left-wing policy recommendations throughout the book.

For 421 pages, despite the horrible editing, I enjoyed myself. I was never swept away in the story, the way a good book should pull you in. It was easy to put down at 10 p.m. and go to sleep. No late nights. No bathtubs. Just spare-time reading.

I was disappointed in DZ because of the stupid mistakes she made. Her character, at least the one we're introduced to early on, wouldn't be caught dead sleeping with a suspect. I won't tell you who, but suffice to say DZ lands in bed with someone we're supposed to believe might have something more to do with the crimes taking place. DZ is too smart of a detective and too sure of her self to fall into bed with someone in the case.

The other romantic sub-plot can disappear too. It adds nothing to the story other than to make DZ into an even bigger female-cop-trying-to-make-it-in-a-man's-world cliche.

Above all, I'm disappointed in the ending. I invested too much time and energy for that ending. It's horrible and unfair. David Locke, who proports to be a best-selling author by another name, should know better than to cheat his audience.

The story falls apart, the characters fade away, the book mercifully comes to an end, it's 10 p.m.

Good night.

...the premise of this book was very interesting. However, it seems that the author thought his job was done once he came up with the premise, failing to deliver a decent story around it. Every conclusion that the detective makes is reached using very sketchy logic, and is further hampered by the author's clumsy attempts to explain it to the reader. How many times has anyone ever told you they had great tickets to something, "in Row B?" It seems to me that most people would say the second row. Also, the "MG" is very carefully shaped into a certain kind of person, which is all abandoned suddenly for no legitimate reason. The love story was ridiculous. Worst of all, though, was that the author had the "MG" kill an innocent victim rather than leave the reader to wrestle with the moral questions involved with the situation. I saw no reason, other than the author wanting the reader not to sympathize with the "MG" to add this victim. Overall, not much that happened in the book was plausible, and though that is the case with many books, this one made it difficult even to pretend for a short time.

I was amazed to read the review that appears above giving "Guest Shot" only one star - at this time, the only review that appears. I read novels constantly, and I found this to be one of the most intriguing I've ever read. In searching for more about the author, I found out that it is a pseudonym for a New York Times bestselling author - which is an indicator, in my opinion, of how far off the mark the other reviewer is when he calls the author a "beginner."

The book grips you from the beginning and sets up a very unique premise - that of a murderer wanting to appear on a TV talk show BEFORE he murders anyone. In this day when serial killer/detective novels are a dime a dozen, to come up with any kind of truly unique premise is an achievement in itself.

But this author never fails to deliver the intrigue. In fact, even the very last paragraph will probably leave you applauding the author, because he personally challenges your own balance of cynicism and hope in a way that is completely valid given the themes of the novel.

I found it hard to put the novel down during the busy holiday season, and I would recommend it to ANYONE who appreciates taut, thoughtful, and provocative writing. But I STILL want to know who David Locke is!

I found this book to be essentially useless. It presented a brief, boring biography of Locke with little attention to his world altering theories. Waste of time.

I think Paul Strathern is brilliant. He must have looked at the way the "...for Dummies" series has a standard format and done something similar. I was more impressed with his treatment of Confucius. In both this book on Locke and the one on Confucius he gives us 50 pp. of content in two sections: "Subject's Life and Works" and "Afterword". But in the book on Locke, Strathern spent too many words poking fun at Locke and calling him boring. He also spent much more effort in describing the life and times of Locke than his philosophy. I think Strathern must find Locke too boring to spend much time discussing his contributions. "From Socrates to Sarte: the Philosophic Quest" by T.Z.Lavine gives four chapters to Hume and a handful of pages to Locke. "The Story of Philosophy" by Will Durant doesn't give a full chapter to either Hume or Locke, merely including them within the context of philosophers whom Durant considers greater. So at least Strathern has given more individual focus to Locke than other writers popularizing philosophy. Strathern also, as part of his format in this 90 Minutes series, gives representative quotes from Locke's work. This is a very nice touch and I recommend the book for this reason. You can see that reading Locke is like reading the King James version of the Bible: "Huh? What did he say?" This is a decent book, but I did feel a bit let down while reading it, which is why I give it 3 instead of 4 stars. Also, the other reviewer made comments saying that Locke's philosophy of government depends on the inate goodness of people. That is only that reviewer's opinion. That did not come across at all in this presentation of Locke's work.

This book sets as its goal to communicate the life and work of John Locke in 90 minutes. For me, the book succeeded in this; I read it in about an hour and then went back over some parts to review in more depth.

John Locke (1632-1704) was an important philosopher; he laid the groundwork for liberal democracy and he was also the founder of empiricism. Strathern spends most of the book describing different events in Locke's life and for non-specialist, this is probably a good approach. Strathern does a fairly good job of putting Locke in his historical context; grew up during the English Civil War, and then lived through Oliver Cromwell's rule and then the Restoration of the Monarchy; one of the more turbulent periods in English history, no doubt. I think Paul Strathern is a British writer and this comes through in his writing.

Strathern is fond is saying that Locke's philosophy was "common sense." However, empiricism (The view that experience, especially of the senses, is the only source of knowledge) is not really self-evident and wholly obvious. Locke also presumed that when one is born, one is a tabula rasa (The mind before it receives the impressions gained from experience. The unformed, featureless mind in the philosophy of John Locke.) or a blank slate. I think that everybody has some innate ideas (things that you just know apart from experience). On occasion, it appears that Locke is a materialist (materialism: The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena) but this is incompatible with his philosophy. Surely, empiricism is a non-physical thing; how much does empiricism weigh? What is its volume? It is non-physical. As a philosophy of epistemology (The branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity), I think empiricism is seriously flawed.

Locke's political thought probably had more impact on the world than his epistemology. Locke believed there is a natural law that gives people certain rights; for example the right to life or the right to liberty. However, because people keep stepping on other people's rights, it is necessary to form some sort of social contract (i.e like the American Constitution). Locke also held that certain rights are inherent and that if a government should act to violate those rights, then the people are justified in starting a revolution against those in power. Locke believed that Government had no legitimacy except the consent of the people (near the end of the 1700's, this would result in a paradigm shift from the Divine Right of Kings, to a Government by the People).

One the most interesting passages (I don't agree with his evaluation of Kant thought) describes several centuries of European philosophy: "Without Descartes there might have been no modern philosophy. But it was Locke who fathered the main line of development - the British Empiricists, who then provoked Kant to produce the greatest philosophical system of all, which in turn gave rise to the elephantine folly of Hegel, and the consequent disbelief in all systems by anyone except Marxists and optimistic punters." (page 49)

One of the interesting legacies of Locke may be his contribution to scientism (The belief that only science provides true knowledge or only that which can be proved by science is true). He makes a distinction between primary qualities of an object, which are quantifiable (e.g. mass or volume) and he said these are in the objects. Then there are secondary qualities, and these are qualitative (e.g. colour or smell) do not have the same connection to the object. In some sense, secondary qualities are mental constructs, in Locke's view. It is easy to see how a belief that quantitative properties are the only real things that can be known (i.e. if science can't measure it, it doesn't exist.) has major repercussions. The other problem I have with Locke relates to his understanding of language and how that language can describe objects. Strathern says, "Locke had rejected the Aristotelian notion whereby the words with which we classify things correspond to the 'real essence' of things." (page 47) The impact of this is that if two people see an object they cannot discover a common essence but both can come up with ideas that are mental constructs. I think this may have contributed to the moral relativism that is now so so pervasive in North America.

On the format of the book, about 60% covers Locke's life and works; that is 48 pages. Then there is a short Afterword, followed by a 10 page section which quotes from Locke's two major works, "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding," (on epistemology) and, "Two Treatises of Government," (on political philosophy; attacks the Divine Right of Kings and argues for liberal democracy). Then there are two chronologies; one of the history of Western philosophy (it is interesting to note who comes before and after Locke) and then there is a chronology of Locke's life.

There are several problems with Locke's thought, however I will look at two here. In describing the point at which everyone has his or her rights and all is well, I think this shows a view that humanity is basically good. However, if you examine the history of the world, yourself or the Bible, you find that this is simply not the case. It is dangerous to build a government with the assumption that people are basically good. On his political philosophy, I don't know if it is wise to wholly place the legitimacy of government in the consent of the people. There must be a higher authority beyond man, immutable and good, on which government can be measured against (e.g. in South Africa, apartheid was legal and authorized by the government however only by appeal to a transcendent law that demands equality could this be overthrown)

I cannot tell you how horrifying it was for me to read this awful book about clown skits. Feder obviously has no comprehension at all of the world of the clown. Mr. Feder, my father was a clown. I know what it's like to be a clown. Believe me, it's not all fun and games as your book would suggest. I hope no one who reads the book will buy into its misinterpretations and stereotypes that you portray. I'm sorry for every true clown you have offended.

Clown Skits for Everyone, by Happy Jack Feder, is an excellent resource. It contains a (very) short introduction on make-up & clown character, & then launches into the meat of the book - a collection of skits suitable for one and/or two clowns. Some skits are 'classics', while others are variations. All are funny and quite 'do-able' even for beginning clowns. The book is interspersed with nuggets about character, character development, entertaining, working with other clowns, audience control, etc. Frankly, as a professional clown, I don't know *where* the negative reviewer is coming from.

This book was a huge disappointment. Although "Leaky Gut Syndrome" is included in the title, the book has only a few pages on this topic. The book consists of chapters about different health problems, each of which contain very little information. Each chapter is only a few pages, with large print, and with brief vague information about each topic, ending in how you should really just go see the doctor (author) or another like practitioner to deal with this problem. The lack of real information is very disappointing. I have researched Leaky Gut a great deal, and I was interested in a book about it, which I hadn't seen. I could have helped her write a much better chapter on it! I guess this book may be good for a person who is completely clueless about holistic approaches....but would then just leave them with no real information. It's a sales pitch, a brochure for her private practice.

This is a very basic introduction to the subject for people who are totally unfamiliar with health disorders like Leaky Gut, Candida, Parasites, etc.. It gives you a good base to start with for proper health and encourages you to seek out help from a licensed alternative care practitioner. If you've read other books or have a pretty good understanding of these subjects already do not buy this book because you will not learn anything new here. If your new to this subject matter and are looking for an alternative to traditional medicine this is a decent book to start with.

Put simply, _Locke in Contexts_ is far to erudite for the average reader (including myself). I've read a good deal of history and a fair amount of economics, but his book was, for the most part, over my head. Professor Tully seems to know his subject extremely well, but he is not, in this work, communicating to the layman. The book is full of turgid, academic prose such as:

"The first feature of any new way of governing is the rejection of any theory that assent or belief is governed by a natural disposition (or telic faculty) to the true or the good. This theory of a naturally dispositional conscience is replaced by an account of the conscience as completely non-dispositional power of judgement, and of the mind as a blank tablet, indifferent to true or false, good or evil."

Yikes! It takes a machette to hack through text like that. John Locke was an important figure in the pre-Enlightenment era of political discourse and many of his theories greatly influenced the thinking of the founding fathers of the United States, but this isn't the way to learn about him (unless you're a professional in the field).

Once in a while Professor Tully puts over a clear and concise idea in an approachable way, such as, "Locke's innovation here is to argue that the fundamental natural law is not self-preservation, but `the preservation of mankind'." These lucid episodes are to far apart for real satisfaction, however, and I do not reccomend this book to any layperson in history or economics.

Lastly, Professor Tully is very much a political liberal. Those with centrist or conservative leanings may well find him irritating in spots.