The Rosenberg case has faded with time and turned into a diffuse urban legend. Facts are rarely possessed by those who are most vehement about the case. This book puts an end to the hodge-podge of information that led some people to believe the Rosenbergs were innocents framed by the government. The truth is that they were spies, they were communists, and they engaged in treason. The Soviets would have acquired The Bomb with or without the Rosenbergs. That doesn't mitigate their guilt for hastening the information to our enemy. The Rosenbergs weren't tried for what they believed. They were tried for what they did. And they were killed for what they did not do--which was recant. Sworn communists, they chose death instead of life. A selfish, stupid choice that placed a worthless ideology over the needs of their two young children, who have written worthwhile books about growing up as orphans of two of the most infamous American traitors. This book ends the speculation that they were innocent, that they had no chance to save their lives by recanting. Here are the latest facts and the fullest account of a chapter in American history that continues to be a vital flashpoint for people on either side of the political spectrum.

The Radosh book concerning the Rosenberg case is a much fuller and more comprehensive treatment of the case than is the more recent book, The Brother, by Sam Roberts. The Brother is based on the current recollections of Ethel Rosenberg's brother David Greenglass who fingered both Ethel and Julius in testimony. David also served a number of years for espionage, himself, as part of same case.

...The Rosenberg File ... makes it very, very clear that Julius was certainly part of a communist espionage ring in the NY City area for years during WWII. The Venona Files also make the same case. It is Ethel who was probably not actually guilty of active espionage activities. It should be said, also, that both Rosenbergs could have saved themselves by telling the truth. Ethel might well not even have been charged, and Julius would almost certainly not have gotten the chair. But, they chose to lie right up to the end and be martyrs for the communist cause. The Radosh book, strongly documents the case against Julius and is also forthright about the weakness of the case against Ethel.

Read both The Rosenberg File for completeness and The Brother by Sam Roberts for a facinating sidelight from the point of view of one of the central characters in the story.

One of the most controversial cases of espionage in American History is the Rosenberg's'. This book is about that case and the evidence surrounding the lives of those involved.

The book centers on that misuse of judicial power and how the Rosenberg's' were executed through the lynch mob mentality. The overwhelming evidence presented in this book amazed me.

Any sane and rational thinking human being would be able to understand the clear and precise information presented in this book. You need know a great deal about the case to understand the writing.

Using every technique to find information the authors have done themselves proud. The collection of facts presented here would convince any jury that a great miscarriage of justice was performed. It is time to correct that wrong.

Hi my name is Jill and I read the book Sacajawea; Her True story by Joyce Milton.. The book was great. It is geared toward first through third grade reading levels, but it is a good read aloud for up to fourth grade. The pictures are very colorful and vivid and the text is simple and easy to understand. The book chronicles the important events of Sacajawea's life, beginning with her childhood. The book also includes maps and symbols that are helpful for additional understanding. I would recommend this book to all primary students who are learning about Sacajawea and/or Lewis and Clark.

This book has excellent pictures and information. It talks not only about whales and marine animals, but about the the plant-like animals too. This book also tells about octopus and squid. For the whales it tells mostly about the baleen ones and the Orca. The book even has an index! This book is fun to read to little kids becuase they can understand it.

My six year old daughter loves animals, especially wild ones. She has been fascinated with Alaska and with wolves for some time now, although (or perhaps because) we live in a large city. She wasn't initially attracted to this book because it isn't very beautiful, but she was captivated by the accounts of real wolves in their natural surroundings. There are many books that relate the nasty side of wolves, and there are some that attempt to undo the damage of the myths of fear; but to read about how wolves really live (and to acknowledge their mystery) is the best for my young wildlife lover.

This play can be read as anti-semitic. In fact, it's pretty hard to defend it from such charges. Shylock is a pretty rotten character and the fact that he is jewish is difficult to overlook (particularly since the other characters mention it on pretty much EVERY page). However, I think it is important to mention that the "heroes" of this play do not necessarily have to be interpreted as heroes. They are by no means perfect and there are many subtle (and some not-so-subtle) instances within the text in which their biases against ANYONE unlike them is illustrated. If one reads the play this way, then Shylock becomes more of a tragic figure rather than an absolutely heartless villain. I don't know. My feelings about this are mixed. There are a few funny parts of this play and the language is, as always, beautiful. The theme of putting a price on human beings is one which has been explored numerous times since. Overall, it is enjoyable, but perhaps not so much so as some of the other comedies. Do not read this play without having read a few others by Shakespeare first. It is an excellent play, but not his best and not his most enjoyable either.

This is a wonderful play - and unless you have seen it or read it you don't know it at all. That's because everything the popular culture tells us about this play is false (for example; how many of you think this play is about a merchant named Shylock? ;-)

The Merchant of Venice is a lively and happy morality tale. Good triumphs over bad - charity over greed - love over hate.
There is fine comedy. Portia is one of Shakespeare's greatest women (and he ennobled women more than any playwright in history). There are moments of empathy and pain with all the major characters. There is great humanity and earthiness in this play. These things are what elevate Shakespeare over any other playwright in English history.

Plays should be seen - not read. I recommend you see this play (if you can find a theater with the courage and skill to do it). But if it is not playing in your area this season - buy the book and read it.

After reading most of the other reviews here, I am fully aware that most of the reviewers didn't read carefully enough (or watch carefully enough if they saw the play.) Now, I'm not saying its not open for different interpretations, but there is one thing I would really like to get straight.

I read MoV for a Bar Mitzvah project on Anti-Semitism. Naturally, my sympathies went to Shylock. However, even if i were Christian, i still would've favored Shylock. What many people believe is that Shylock is a cold hearted ruthless person and only wanted to get back at Antonio because Antonio was a Christian.

Not true. Shylock specifically says something along the lines off, "Why should I lend money to you? You spit on me, and call me a Jewish dog!" I'm not saying that Shylock was a good guy, but I am saying that he is not the villain.

In fact, the "Merchant of Venice," in this story is actually Shylock, not Antonio, contrary to popular belief. My thoughts on the story was that Shylock requested a pound of Antonio's flesh because he did not trust Antonio. Who would trust someone that spat on him? The fact is, Antonio doesn't pay him back in the end.

Now, there's always something else we have to put into consideration. Would the judge had given the "spill one ounce of Christian blood" verdict at the end if Shylock were not a Jew?

This is the mark of a great play. A play that really gets you thinking. But I encourage you, I beg of you, that when you read it or see it, please do not hold Shylock up to being a cold hearted villain. Hold Antonio up to that image. (joking, of course, Antonio's not a bad guy, he's just not a good guy.)

This is a classic book for young readers and I had thought it would be accurate on the level of the readers. I looked back at a copy with a publishing date of 1985 and I was shocked when I saw the apatasaurus called the old, incorrect name of "brontosaurus." But that was not the worst error! Many older books have the name wrong 9and thus the wrong head, but that can be a minor thing.
But it got worse when it showed the "brontosaurus" as having nostrils on top of its head, which is actually a feature of the Brachiasaurus. And then having it hid from the Allosaurus (correct predator, at least) under water perpetuates the swamp-dwelling, water-immersing behavior model which is again incorrect.
If only those offending pages could be excised it would get four or five stars. The book does show the flying and swimming contemporaries of the dinosaurs; correctly identifying them as not being "dinosaurs." That could be more explicit but the point is made, even if subtly.

Now I see above there is a new publishing date. I hope the offending passage has been corrected. Then it would be a solid four-star book.

This is a good book for kids starting to read, that have an interest in dinosaurs. My son likes the part about how nobody knows what color dinosaurs were.

My four year old son checked this book out of the library. I've renewed the loan twice. He loves it so much that I just purchased two copies. _Dinosaur Days_ is informative and engaging for the young reader. He even uses it as a reference work to check whether he is correct in his indentification of his toy dinosaurs. I would highly recommend this book!

This is a wonderful book. The author tells the story of the rise and fall of the "human potential" movement of the 60s and 70s through portraits of the men and women who made it happen--Ruth Benedict and Margaret Mead who were unofficial mentors to psychologist Abraham Maslow, who was the true prophet of the movement to build "a religion of the self," and Carl Rogers of the encounter groups and Timothy Leary, who carried the quest for selfhood into the psychedelic stratosphere after leaving Harvard to spread the good (secular) word. All of these people are given incisive portraits by Milton, who uses them to tell the story of how we got all balled up in what Lasch later called "a culture of narcissism." Milton's book explains a lot. Reading it gives you a feeling that you're looking at American culture in a time lapse mirror over the last 30 years. A classic.

This book reflects on pop culture and the way it developed from the Progressive era of the late 1800's into the 60's. These poisonous theories embrace by humanistic psychology sought to undermine an Anglo-American culture that had made America the greatest and fairest nation in recorded human history. In that vein this book is like "Intellectuals" by Paul Johnson in the way it contrasts the way self anointed guru's of the last half of the 20th century live their own lives versus the way they recommend other's live theirs. By citing pseudo-intellectuals like Abe Maslow, Tim Leary, Carl Rogers, Margaret Mead, Ruth Benedict, and Richard Alpert, the author reveals what many of us thought all along, these people are frauds who have perpetrated their absurd theories of human behavior by masquerading them as science. Recall that thousands of intellectuals were gulled into believing that Marxism was scientifically determined and that its conclusions were inevitable. All of it turned out to be nonsense on stilts, but we should use it as a lesson where we never forget that we can never dismiss man's incredible capacity for self-deception.

Joyce Milton outlines the central tenets of her subjects by citing their disdain for the family, religion and private property. It is interesting that Hanna Arendt, in her book "the Origins of Totalitarianism", recounts these themes as ones so destructive to what has made western culture preeminent in human history. Did this all just happen by accident? No. Joshua Muravchik covers this ground well in his book "Heaven on Earth; the decline and fall of socialism".

Milton explains New-Age spirituality, radical feminism and self-esteem psychology, and its origination of the hot tub, group hug societies so in evidence in many parts of America (such as Marin County California where anti-Americanism is a virtue.) She cites an interesting example of the confusion these people might possibly feel if they take their beliefs to a logical conclusion by quoting their intellectual guru, Karl Marx, who says at the end of his life, "I am not a Marxist". Who knew?

Milton posits that humanistic psychology is arrogant because it believes that a theory of the universe can be deduced from a person's own experience; and that it is socially irresponsible because it advises us to keep our eyes on the weather vane of our own conflicting feelings rather than on the lives of those around us. No society can function effectively under such a regime.

This whole project of humanistic psyche is being shown as "the emperor who is wearing no clothes" and with that behind us the world might perhaps get back to the real science of why we're the way we are. This is an excellent book that should at least be read by every college freshman.

Humanistic psychology rolled over American culture like a vast tidal wave, leaving every school awash in classes on self-esteem, and every starlet appearing on Leno babbling about how this or that made her feel better about herself. What Milton points out in The Road to Malpsychia is the cost of our national fixation with narcissim. She also reveals a lot of ugly truths about the founders of our curent culture. Margaret Mead and Kinsey are proven to be charlatans and liars. Carl Rogers, pop guru the inner self, couldn't translate his intense love for himself into caring for another person. And best of all, Milton writes well. This book deserves more than 5 stars.

The author of this book obviously has no empathy for Chaplin and because of this the reader does not get a "feel" for the real man. Chaplins life was anything but dull, however this book is.

Although parts of this biography of Sir Charles Chaplin are very. . . distrubing, it does also present Chaplin at his best. It is a great read for one wanting a little more of the personal take on the early history of Hollywood, and its colorful characters. The biography also deals with the blacklisting that occurred during the McCarthy communist inquisition, and Chaplin's stance and involvement. If you want to read nothing but the nice things in Chaplin's life, do not even open the front cover of this copy. If your admiration of Chaplin is for his work, and you can handle a tarnished side of Chaplin, then by all means, read this book!

Some of the griping you're reading here is misplaced. If you're a huge Chaplin fan and can't face the warts, go buy the Robinson book and obsess on the minutiae of Chaplin's oevre. But if you want to really know what kind of man he was, this book is as good as any, maybe a lot better.

I thought this book was very informative and showed people what whales are really like, just gentles creatures under the ocean. I would recommend this book to anyone who would like to read more into the life of whales underwater. This book has made me really want to go whale watching to see what they really look like.

I bought this biography because I have always been fascinated with Hillary Rodham Clinton's role in her husband's administration. I was hoping for an objective look at her contributions to policy, instead, this novel is full of acrimonious allegations and innuendo. It seems that the author is completely unable to separate HRC the person from her politics. This book is horribly slanted and I would not recommend to someone who truly desires insight into either one of the Clintons.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if many of the negative reviews for this book were planted by the Clintons' secret police. Genuine or planted, note that none of those reviews defend the Clintons on the facts. They claim the author is a hater who ignored all of the Hillary's "accomplishments," without of course naming any of them. In fact her sole accomplishment, among numerous public policy failures and absurd leftist notions about children and education, was that she married a man who happened to become president.

It's true that the author repeats some of the Clinton gossip, but she makes no attempt to disguise it as fact. She even has several kind things to say about this disgusting person. But like almost all who write about HRC, she can't escape the inevitable conclusion that this woman is a liar and a demagogue, ready to trash innocent lives and careers to secure her grab for power and adulation. What's amazing to me is how many celebrity worshipers there are out there who don't want to know the facts, or who know them and simply don't care.

Joyce Milton provides a very objective account of the personality, actions, power, and influence of First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton. Unlike some books that I have recently read, Milton presents the reader with an refreshingly unbiased depiction of Mrs. Clinton. I finished the book with a greater sense of understanding and knowlegde of the events, scandals, and rumors that have surrounded the First Lady -without feeling biased by the author's personal viewpoint. I recommend this book to anyone interested in First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton.