Mark David Hall has tried to fill a void in the historiography. A biography of James Wilson was certainly overdue by 1997. Hall does shed light on Wilson's unique epistomology and how he integrated it into the liberal and republican ideology of the time. Indeed, Hall demonstrates how Wilson's belief in a "moral sense" that existed in all human beings necessitated an optimism toward popular rule, an optimism that surpassed that of many of the other Founders by the late 1780s.
Nonetheless, this work has numerous unforgivable mistakes. Hall over-emphasizes Wilson's democratic tendencies, going so far as to actually call him a democrat -- a title that Wilson would have abhored as much as aristocrat. Hall notes Wilson's belief that majoritarian government had to have its power checked, but this aspect of Wilson's ideology he gives slight attention to. He makes a disengenuous argument that Wilson believed that balance of power was needed to check corruption rather than the democracy. This distinction is hollow. To believe that democratic government needs to be limited is equivalent to believing that democratic rule needs to be checked. The truth is that though Wilson did believe that the people could be trusted more than did the other Founders, he also believed in limiting popular power. Wilson disagreed at many points how these checks ought to be achieved and to what degree they were to be implimented. But the same can be said for most of the Founders. Wilson is better classified along with the majority of the other Founders as a republican and a liberal -- a republican willing to allow the people a slightly greater role in authority, but a republican nonetheless, not a democrat.
Hall also over-emphasizes Wilson's role in developing the governmental ideology of the new republic. Likewise he often underestimates the activity of others. This work also fails to place Wilson's ideas in the context of broader, external, intellectual activity, therefore giving the reader the impression that he originated more than he did. Finally, this author fails to chart Wilson's intellectual development. There seems to be an assumption that what Wilson believed in 1789 was what he believed in 1768 soon after he arrived in America.
This is a book that I wanted to like and it does have some redeeming value, but ultimately it is too flawed to allow any more than a single star. I will be looking for a new biography of Wilson, soon.

The Manual of Therapeutics for Addictions was an assigned textbook for my substance abuse diagnosis course. I am in a Marriage and Family Therapist (MFT) program. I found this book to be of little use to people in the clinical field. This book was advertised as being a good source for mental health professionals. This book is primarily focusing on discussions and treatment plans that either devalue the role of clinicians or are impertinent to our scope of practice. This manual should have been advertised to medical students only.I'd first like to mention that this manual did provide helpful information on the various physiological effects of different substances. I found that many of the physiological effects, and withdrawal symptoms are very similar to DSM IV disorders. This made me aware that as a MFT, I must never overlook the possibility of substance use/abuse. This information will also help me better educate family members as to the drug effects of opiates, stimulants, sedatives, hallucinogens, and cannabis.This manual doesn't value the therapeutic experience, nor does it consider therapy a viable source in treatment planning for substance abuse. This book advocated the use of methadone and other outside help, such as AA and NA. Most treatment modalities discussed in this manual were geared towards medical professionals. Clinicians cannot prescribe methadone, use restraint harnesses, pump client's stomachs, or give them drug tests. Most of the treatment discussed in this manual revolved around the ER and inpatient treatment. How relevant is this to outpatient clinical work? It isn't.I also found many encompassing statements in the AA chapter. I find it very difficult to believe that so many of the generalizations are true. For example how is it possible that the "...first epidemic of alcoholism occurred after 1750..."? The Bible records drunkenness back in the times of Noah. Is it possible that humans have exhibited such self discipline that alcoholism didn't existed until after 1750? Another outlandish generalization is that "..in over 60 years of existence there has not been one fight..." in AA over the topic of a Higher Power. I am wondering how the author of this chapter can make such blanket statements. There are millions of AA members across the nation. Is it possible that he is omniscient?As a whole, this manual is not a good tool for MSWs, MFTs, psychologists. Considering that only a small fraction of this manual provided helpful information, I'd recommend finding a less costly way of obtaining the information. The internet is a good source.

Norman S. Miller, Mark S. Gold and David E. Smith collaborate with other writers to form a book titled, Manual of Therapeutics for Addictions. The text uses many writers from different fields to add to the book's body of knowledge and research data.Some of the strong points of the book include: Definitions of many medical terms which are related to addictive disorders. It also gave a thorough explanation of drug addiction, including the many types, prevalence rates, intoxication and withdrawal symptoms. The book also covered treatment issues for the many addictive disorders and explained rates of comorbidities. Another positive aspect of the book was that the chapters were rather concise, in that they focused on one or two particular issues and discussed them in a way that was readable and easy to follow . Also, the use of DSM-IV diagnoses throughout the book helped the reader relate explanations of disorders to the actual criteria for which diagnoses are given. Now on to the aspects of the book which I felt to be unsatisfactory, or should I say, the meat of my critique. First of all, though acquiring the aid of professionals in the field to help make a book has its many benefits, it also has its downfalls. There were a number of times in the book when authors of different chapters had completely strong and opposing viewpoints. For instance, the use of psychotherapy was encouraged in one chapter and totally debunked in another. Statistical information throughout the book also proved to be inferior. There were numerous times when the data being given were based on studies and surveys completed over 20 years ago. I find it hard to believe that more recent data could not be collected if a little more effort was given on the part of the authors. Another negative aspect of the statistics given were that the percentage ranges of findings were so large that the reader virtually had nothing to go by. For example, it was not surprising to find ranges of between 20% and 75% when the writer was trying to make a statement about a particular topic. Worst yet is that the writers never acknowledge their unfortunate lack of preciseness to the reader, instead they continued on as though they had just given the reader a valuable piece of information. The explanation of diagrams and statistics were also not well thought through. I found on occasion, other possible and likely explanations for the data that was given. This makes me question the objectivity of the specific writers of those chapters. Furthermore, I was very surprised to see in some chapters, such as the one concerning Alcoholics Anonymous groups, that information was given and stated as factual, when in actuality most individuals who are familiar with the field and even many who are not familiar with the field would be able to easily decipher that it was nothing more than mere opinion. This aspect of the book was very insulting to the reader, especially when one considers the caliber of the three editors of this book, all of whom are MD's, and who should know better than to allow opinion to be stated as fact in their text. Another negative aspect of the creators of book, as told to me by my professor, is that it was advertised on the internet to be a good handbook for social workers and the psychological professions. Rather ironic, when one considers, as I stated earlier, that the book periodically debunks the effectiveness those types of related interventions have. Lastly, though equally important, is the price one is required to pay for this book. To the browser it might come across as a good text to have in one's collection yet upon further investigation by the reader the shortcomings of the book become apparent. Save your money and look harder for a decent book.

Being dissatisfied with my previous text for a graduate course in Substance Abuse Treatment, I went to the Internet to see what was out there. I found a 1997 book with good reviews and a detailed outlining of chapters. I was familiar with one of the authors, David E. Smith, founder and Medical Director of the Haight-Ashbury Clinic. It was a straight medical model, which was not necessarily negative, as that still represents the mainstream of addiction treatment. In addition, I appreciated how closely the comments on assessment and diagnosis remained true to DSM IV. The inclusion of chapters on treatment of addictive disorders; the treatment of gambling, eating and sex addictions; cultural considerations; AA; treatment efficacy; managed care; and ethics sounded like the outline for the course. The book does have medical sections of use to the behavioral science student that are not included in most texts. A strong point is made that assessment for drug abuse should be a part of any assessment, and that more than one drug is likely to be abused. I appreciated the inclusion of drug testing and the pros and cons of the various tests. It is useful to know that psychotropics are not very useful in the treatment of addictive disorders. The authors see addiction as the cause of many psychiatric symptoms and state that the first step is to separate the drug from the person. A major repeated point of the authors is that psychiatric symptoms are usually the

antecedent rather than the consequence of drug abuse. The authors' position is that drugs are taken for their "positive, brain reinforcing effects" and not for relief from psychiatric symptoms. The argument seems a revision of the "which came first question." The sections on managed care and legal and ethical issues in substance abuse are well done and informative. The preface states that the book is appropriate for "physicians and other mental health care specialists." The back cover states that the text is " Designed to meet the diverse needs physicians, psychiatrists, mental health professionals, medical students and residents, this authoritative text offers clear, step-by-step recommendations on the selection and application of both pharmacological and psychosocial therapies." While useful in supplying pharmacological information and data on diagnosis and assessment, this manual misrepresents itself as giving an adequate representation of psychosocial treatments- the chapter titles and subheadings do not present what they state. The preface states that "As many as 50% of general medicine populations and 75% of general psychiatric populations contain patients with addictive disorders." The authors state, "Enthusiasm for treating addictive disorders can result from developing and possessing knowledge and skill in their diagnosis and treatment, especially when patients are followed into their recovery." This is the only place enthusiasm is found in the entire book. The interior of the book is clinical in the worst sense of the word, and contains unfounded generalizations and statistics. The psychosocial parts are done with such superficiality that only someone unfamiliar with this material would benefit from reading it. The UglyMost prevalent forms of treatment are included, but represented by a brief one-paragraph description. The only chapter with any depth or passion is the one on Alcoholics Anonymous. This chapter is the most

poorly written of the manual. It contains bias, lack of analysis of the findings and more erroneous generalization than fact. The author of this chapter borrows statistics without questioning from AA's big book and other AA surveys. For example, they report that 50% of those starting AA drop out within the first three months; of those sober less than a year, 41 % continue for another year; and of those sober over 5 years, 91% will continue in AA for another year. The implication is made that the longer in AA, the more likely the abstinence, which may be true. However no mention is made of all the people for whom AA is not working. The author of the AA chapter makes generalizations that are contradicted elsewhere in the manual. He states, "All physicians are viewed as friends of AA." On page 264, he states, "...several pitfalls can occur between treatment professionals and members of AA, primarily involving conflict and rivalry." Other areas of conflict are noted, which imply the relationship with medical and mental health personnel is sometimes less than endearing. The commitment to AA and its derivatives as the only form of effective treatment is disquieting. It is stated that "AA and NA are compatible with the treatment of all medical and mental disorders. They should be considered essential in the treatment of all addictive disorders." Norman Miller (1995) concluded in another book, that "Only one method of treatment appears to be effective and to consistently work in the long run, mainly abstinence based treatment when combined with either regular continuous and indefinite attendance at AA meetings." This reader can mostly accept that abstinence based programs are the most effective, although it has not been empirically established that AA is the only effective treatment for alcoholism. In Project Match (1996), a study sponsored by National institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, a comparison of the treatment modalities of "twelve step facilitation", cognitive-behavioral therapy and motivational enhancement therapy, found all treatments to be equally effective. Also, it seems very odd to me how someone so familiar with the drug area would choose to classify alcohol separately from all the other drugs. For the last two decades in professional circles, the rallying cry has been that alcohol is a drug like any other drug. Summary: Although the manual contains many important statistics and discussions, due to the inadequacy of the psychosocial sections, I would not even recommend this book to the medical student or physician interested in the non-medical aspects of addiction.

Oh my....this book is certainly off the beaten track. Here is an author who decided the topic of 666 would probably sell, so he moved forward to discuss it with a completely empty bag of knowledge. The author himself must have published this book because any publishing house with adequate knowledge would not have touched it. And how in the world can anyone write or read about 666 without mentioning the Roman Empire or the Catholic Church? It is like writing about the State of New York without ever mentioning New York City. Like writing about poetry without ever mentioning the word "stanza." I say to all readers out there, "forget this book. It is based on lousy information and a few assorted scare tactics that don't hold the water of logic.

This book is so incorrect it screams of poor research and a lack of biblical knowledge. The author makes the terrible mistake of pretending he understands the mark of the beast when, in fact, he doesn't have a clue. He mentions barcodes and computers. Ha ha! He is so far off. The mark of the beast has been upon the human race since Justinian declared Christianity the official religion of Rome. Wake up, author. You need to KNOW what you're talking about before you write and self-publish a book.

Lot on barcodes and some bible verses. I received the book as part of subscription package. Otherwise I would not have spent the money for it.

There was absolutely nothing hear that gave strategies and/or secrets to Panzer General 3D Assault! The instruction manual that comes w/this game comes w/ a better strategy plan for the tutorial, than any of the strategies listed here. Most strategies are one to three paragraphs long!! Hardly any info. for you to use. Don't buy this book, if you really want it, email me, and I sell you my copy for a buck! Thats about how much its worth! If I could rate this book a minus 1, it still would be over-rated!

I purchased the book and was greatly disapointed. I purchased the book to use the data tables as a means of comparing different units in the game. When I started reading the book I noticed that none of the Soft and Hard Attack values matched the game values for ANY of the units in the book. These factors are the most important numbers to look at when comparing unit info. Why buy a guide book that supplements the rule book if the information is incorrect...not just some or a few of the values but all of them.

I also looked at the walkthroughs of the various campaigns and senarios and these seem to be lacking some depth. If you are looking for anything earth shattering in this guide book in the walkthroughs don't bother. If your looking for unit stats to be accurate and informative you had better just look at the data the game gives you.

My overall ratting is a 1 and would not recommend this book to anyone who loves this game.

Let me start by saying that I bought this book mostly for the equipment tables. Well, they are all wrong. Even the headings do not compare to those used in the game itself. There has also been equipment omitted from the tables. Also, the number of turns given for most of the scenarios in the campaigns are wrong. The strategies are mostly OK but if, like me, you are buying this book for the equipment tables - don't! Either the authors of the book did not play the game or there was a massive overhaul of the game after the book was written.