It is a wonderful idea to make available recordings of great speeches. I hope we have more of this in the future.
In the case of older speeches, the selection is very good, considering the restraints of time, and the readers are uniformly excellent.
As for the modern speeches, it is a marvel of technology that we can hear these speeches as delivered. It is incredible that we can hear the voice of William Jennings Bryan. I can listen to Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" a thousand times and never tire of it! How I wish I could listen to the voice of Patrick Henry! But this selection is too heavily weighted to the modern, and many of those do not deserve billing as the GREATEST speeches of ALL TIME. Also, some of the modern speeches which are included are abridged, e.g. Reagan is cut off in the middle of a sentence, while lengthy and undeserving speeches are played out in their entirety.
Also, with only a few exceptions, the selection is almost entirely American. It is hard to understand why Jimmy Carter's lengthy speech on energy policy is included, while Pericles' funeral oration is not; or why only a small portion of a single Winston Churchill speech is included; why while Bill Clinton's complete 1993 pulpit address, in excess of 20 minutes, is included.
It would be helpful if the complete list of speeches were available to online buyers, as it would be to shoppers in a brick and mortar store.

I have listened to this collection twice now, both times with pleasure. Hearing the acutal voices of Amelia Earhart, Rev. Martin Luther King, Winston Churchill and Neil Armstrong made a deeper connection than simply reading their words. The collection showcases different subjects and many times contrasts opposing viewpoints of the ideas. This volume is a fantastic introduction to the moving ideals and sometimes sad truths that have influenced Western Civilization.

Very few books give enough credit, in my opinion, to the important role women played in the development of American society. French Canadian women are probably at the very end of a long line of feminist ethnic groups frequently overlooked for the formidable standard they set, later a prototype characterized by Rosie the Riveter during America's darkest days during the middle of the last century. The Belles of New England is a well researched history about the development of New England's dinosaur textile and shoe industries and how hard working immigrant women made moguls of their owners. Although the Franco-American woman were a large workforce in these now largely empty brick buildings, hopelessly stuck on the landscape of New England towns, they weren't the only ones to contribute to the industrial age success of these mega-industries. Still, Franco-American women were unusual. Largely from Quebec, they raised extraordinarily large families while working labor jobs to raise money for their extended families. Franco-Americans are different than other American ethnic melting pot varieties in that they could always go home again, to Canada, by train or by foot. But, they stayed, raised their families and contributed to the wealth of a few industrialists who probably never said thank you. So, author Bill Moran has said in "Belles" what the moguls couldn't even conceptualize if their lives depended on it to do so. Nice selection of historic photos, too. Moran gives long overdue credit to the women who helped make New England prosperous.

Mill has to be among the most egotistical and arrogant of philosophers. That is saying quite a bit.

"On Liberty" shows this very well. In this little tract, he is hailed as focusing on the individual and extolling freedom, etc. In fact, however, it is a rather good reflection of his dim view of the majority of humanity as "mediocre" (which may or may not be accurate), and his very self-serving view of eccentricity. Why is this so? Quite simply, this can be seen by his vaunted "harm principle." It seems great on the surface, and hard to argue that it would limit "good" eccentricity. But this is not the case. If one wishes to stretch what is considered "harm," and (in following from the "Considerations on Representative Government") what is considered "self-protection," one would run against Mill's ideology, and one can guess that this protector of liberty would then be more than willing to come down on this "dangerous" eccentric. In the end, it turns out that Mill is very supportive of eccentricity....as long as it is the eccentricity of John Stuart Mill. Moreover, his system seems like it would only work if it became what he was arguing against: he wants to liberate (certain) people from the bonds of social prejudice. Yet, in order to free people from the intoleration of social opinion, tolerance must become the social opinion, which would be just as biased and intolerant as the previous variety. Perhaps this is where we have the origin of our modern "tolerance of all, except the 'intolerant.'"

For a man hailed so much for his writings, a deeper reading reveals a rather elitist and self-centered ideology. Quite a disappointment.

You can read Rand, Emerson and Hayek. You can even marvel at the orations of Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson. There is still not a single book that defends individual liberty and individual spirit as well as J.S. Mill's "On Liberty."

First, it must be said; If we are judging by original philosophical arguments, Mill is not much. His "Utilitarianism" (on which much of "On Liberty" was built) has been attacked from many angles. His "Representative Government" is better replaced by Locke's "Second Treatise" or (if you've time to kill), Montesquieu's "Spirit of Laws." I still give this five stars though because "On Liberty" is just that good. I've already read it 5 times in '02!

What makes it so gosh-durn tasty is that it is the first book- to my knowledge- to defend individual liberty without stooping to the 'natural rights' or 'social contract' balderdash. Liberty, Mill argues, is good for a few reasons. First, it maximizes debate which helps avoid the stifler of all societies, dogmatism. It is also the best way not to screw things up, meaning, that people know their interests better than others. As the reviewer below points out, Mill does disdain majority rule though it's not out of contempt for the masses (Mill is clear this is not what he means.) Rather, his view is that majority rule leads to tyranny just as fast as despotic rule. What it boils down to is that Mill defends democracy, liberty, skepticism and tradition (yes..simultaneously) as long as each AVOIDS dogmatic thinking and operates while keeping the individual sacrosanct. Ya know..come to think of it...Bush, Gore, Dashcale, Gephardt, Hatch, Lott and the entire beltway clan might benefit from this read. I wonder if they can understand such big thoughts?! Just kidding!! (No, I'm not!) ;-/

Back Cover description: Jessica had tried hard to play down her attractiveness at work. She wasn't interested in office affairs, or so she thought until company boss Bruno Carr personally assigned her to work closely with him on a major lawsuit...
Jessica knew she'd won Bruno's professional respect. She also sensed that he saw beyond her neat suits and cool manner-both of which Jessica was forced to abandon on a Caribbean business trip...Steamy, sensual nights followed, but was it more than an affair? The only verdict Jessica could be certain of was that she was now expecting her boss's baby!

Nothing new, but likable characters in a plot that's been done before. Jessica is a lawyer and not all that young, so why did she rely on the rhythm method for birth control. And why did Bruno? You get the feeling that he set the whole trip up, so why no condoms? Couldn't some of these authors find another way to get the plot moving?