I ordered this book thinking its short stories would be about Lithuania by a visitor, perhaps. Instead, the stories, while quite well written, are about the author's experiences in Baltimore, where some Lithuanians happen to cross paths, peripherally, with the author, and about his interactions with Arabs, here and in Africa -- which stories have a decided (I think) homosexual bent. Readers hoping for a travelogue about Lithuania are sure to be disappointed, if not annoyed, and might well ask for a refund.

At a price of over $1,000, I had expected a very interesting look at one of my faviorite industrialist genuises. J.D. Rockefeller Sr. is one of the most interesting Captians of Industry both personally and professionally I have seen in my life. These published papers of his were a deeper insight into his mind and how it worked. This most fascinating man had class, style, intelligence, and logic. I can tell by these papers that he is not only consevative but also not, contratry to popular belief, an ultra malterialist. He beleived he needed to surround himself with such riches and luxuries to "meet the social image of a man of my stature". These papers are a must for any "fan" of John D. Rockefeller Sr., founder of the Standard Oil Trust and richest, in most all respectes, man of his time.

John Porter Houston strays from the usual in this wonderfully written book. Most other authors deal only with the poets lives and works in a trivial and banal manner, treating the poets as precocious and intoxicated. It is refreshing to finally find a book that reviews their legacies in terms of cultural and philosophical currents in a diverse and lucid manner. Included are reviews of selections of their work with the original french and the authors own intelligent translations. I highly recomend this book to any serious student of either Rimbaud or Mallarme as one of the few available which is both entertaining and thought provoking.

A well-rounded book on political philosophy through the ages. It does a fairly good job of covering the classical tradition through modern times. It does a good job covering antiquity to the middle ages. My gripe is that the modern radicals get covered and their is virtually nothing from the American Founding Fathers or those who inspired the American Constitutional Republic (except John Locke.) Perhaps, something from Montesquieu and Madison could have been included.

It is used for various Political Theory classes. Incidentally, I've acquired a great deal of the writings in this book beforehand and probably never spent as much as this text costs. Also, the bulk of these writings are available in the public domain, which makes one wonder why it is so expensive. Typical of most textooks, it is ridiculously expensive like all textbooks from the Cali Textbook Cartel.

Henry's overview of the key figures and concepts of the scientific revoulution is an admirable general resource for studying the political, cultural and religious background to early modern science.

This small and highly accessible book is organized around an extensive bibliography that is referenced throughout the chapters in bracketed footnote form, allowing readers to pursue histories, concepts and themes by simply checking the back of the book for the articles and books Henry lists as key texts (the bibliography is extensive, up to date, and annotated).

The text is accessible and well-written and would serve as a resource for undergraduates, novices, or as guide for more advanced studies -- I'm beginning a dissertation on this period and have found this to be an invaluable organizational tool and reference manual for my reading.

My only criticism is that the book is rather sparse on feminist/gender studies/critiques, though it does offer a few key texts and a very brief overview of feminist contributions. A broader description and more inclusive listing of the recent contributions of gender studies to the field would have extended the range of this impressive little volume.

In addition to chapters on the alchemical, cultural, and religious influences on early natural philosophy, readers will find a succinct and thought-provoking analysis of historigraphical approaches to science studies.

The bibliography is comprised of secondary sources and manages to be both extensive (245 entries) and selective, offering the principal texts for the terms of each debate or discussion point.

A visually attractive book that will provide quick information on medical developments through history, helpful in relating what happened in the medical world at similar times but in different settings or places. Brief time-relationship is also given to non-medical events. Bibliography is extense, Internet and museum references are welcome for their usefulness to those interested in expanding their information. Latinamerican contributions to Medicine is greatly ignored by the authors.

This is Vol. 2 following "JLA: New World Order". Grant Morrison seems to be making a little bit more sense. He still doesn't explain the action and events. We just have to withhold our disbelief and have faith without understanding what is happening. This book contains two stories; one concerning Zauriel the angel and the other concerning a villan named The Key who I think I'm supposed to know, but frankly I can't place. This is not Zauriel as I know him. Here's a quote of his from this book: "...Asmodel? Sure, he'll be back. He'll use flesh-suits next time, I'll probably kill him, there'll be courtoom dramas in Heaven, and in the end none of it matters, so why can't we all just be nice and have babies? That's my pathetic prayer every night before I go to sleep. I can't thank you people enough." Flesh-suits? Courtroom dramas? Be nice and have babies? Is this the way angels speak? And as for The Key... It's short and makes reasonable sense... but Grant Morrison could spend a bit more time on plot, story, and character development... and less time on posteuring.

Grant Morrison can pen some cool tales, and while these aren't his best, their are quite good and clever? The three stories (from JLA #5-9) include a new JLA member, a plague of angels and the JLA saving the day... which will give one villain ultimate power.
In the first tale Professor Ivo and T. O. Morrow create the Tomorrow Woman: a superhero to infiltrate the JLA and destroy it. But T. O. Morrow's plan might not be what anyone expects and may save the day. A great tale about personal [word not in vocabulary].
Then the Zauriel, the Angel of love is found on the run from other angels? What do they want and why are they trying to level a city to get it? Only the JLA can stop these evil cherubs but with the arrival of Asmodel all hope seems lost. If that wasn't enough Flash is trapped in a teleport and Superman is stuck on the moon, trying to stop it from crashing into the Earth courtesy of Neuron? How can all of these problems be solved? Within two issues no less?

Finally the JLA gets home and prepares for the arrival of Green Arrow when they are all knocked out by the Key. The enlightened madman puts the JLA through mental interpretations of alternate realities. Appearently, when they all figure out it ain't real, the Key will be able to conquer the universe. Only Conner Hawke and his dad's goofy trick arrows can save they day! The story is as strange as it sounds and it's great!
Grant Morrison is obviously having a lot of fun with these stories and finally giving the JLA worthy foes. Check it out!

lots of fun , lots of action , with little or less to complain about :

first story : is about the new pizaro , a lovely woman chapped called "Tomorrow Woman" made by pizaro's maker & another , to destroy the JLA , but with a twist as the machine prove to be alive .

the second story : as superman use all his resources to prevent the moon from going out of orbit while the rest fight the king of angles to save he X-Angle azreal the newest super hero of earth . stupid I know , but never the less a full action story .

lastly but not least the Mad man who took control of the moon taking offer the JLA with one blow , controlling them with their dreams and with using their resources almost becomes the Master of the universe only to be stopped by the JLA youngest members the green arrow and Flash .

really every story of them is wonderful by its own , but the three of them where to short , specially the first one , I really would've liked if Tomorrow Woman was to face the JLA & lose , at least that would be something to see , and that was the missing star in my book

Thomas Mallon has written about Ruth Paine, the woman who found she had harboured one of the most infamous criminals of all time- Lee Harvey Oswald. Whatever you believe about the Kennedy assassination, you'll appreciate Mallon's glimpse at what it was like to be standing right next to one of the most important, disruptive, and tragic events of the twentieth century. Ruth Paine is revealed to be a woman with a very sure sense of who she is and what she stands for, a woman who- almost alone among survivors truly close to the assassination- refuses to be defined by her proximity to what happened that day in Dealey Plaza.

Mallon's skill at conveying a sense of what the world was like in 1963 is remarkable, and very welcome. In several paragraphs, he details just how un-sophisticated a planet we lived on then; it was a day of hand-typed copies instead of Xeroxes and the 8-cent stamp instead of e-mail. As someone who was around at that time, I've often wished that more authors dealing with this topic would take more care to remind readers that the world was a very different place then. Forgetting that has led many assassination researchers and theorists down many a specious and unproductive pathway. One example (which is not to be found in Mallon's work) is Michael Paine's ownership of a Minox camera. Today's researchers have made the most prodigious hay out of that, never suspecting the truth- the Minox was heavily promoted and sold in the early Sixties as a toy for the well-off (which Mr. Paine was, despite his unassuming lifestyle), advertised in 'National Geographic'. The camera- in the context of its time- was no more meaningful than possession of a laptop is today. Yes, both COULD be used for nefarious purposes, but most owners use their laptops for peaceful, private purposes, and so did most Minox buffs. Mallon's work is always scrupulous in remembering the difference between Now and Then, and it is most refreshing.

Ruth Paine seems to have given much of herself to Mallon, and therefore to us. She is revealed to have been very pained at several questions and revelations that came up both before and during the interviews for the book, but she seems never to have cut off the author's lines of inquiry, nor even to have directed them, answering frankly. Touchingly, Mallon's research revealed things to Ruth Paine even she had not known about the central event of her life, and her reactions to them are interesting indeed.

Mallon has not produced a perfect book- there does not seem to have been much direct questioning of Mrs. Paine on some of the topics that assassination researchers raise the most questions about, and so the book will give a great deal of unnecessary ammunition to those who feel that Mrs. Paine has something to hide, rather than clearing matters once and for all. And there are a few places where Mallon does not make clear that he's quoting from previously published material, giving rise to the impression that he interviewed people he did not. While a reader familiar with the subject will be able to discern immediately that, say, Robert Oswald did not grant Mallon an interview, the author waits a bit to let the average reader in on that.

Still, it's a remarkable look at a remarkable witness to history, a woman who has had staggering events roll over her, and like the slender reed she resembles, has sprung back, ready for new life, ready to bend in new directions, respecting the force of the storm, but quietly, serenely confident in her ability to survive it.

Thomas Mallon's book successfully addresses the charges made against the Paines, including the ludicrous attempt to tie them in with the assassination.From beginning to end Mallon intermittantly exposes the charletans who have used this tragedy to promote their own agendas.This book is not for fantasists who continually accept the idea that everyone from LBJ to the Kennedy family were engaged in a vast conspiracy to initiate then cover up the crime of the century.The reader who wants to know the full and true facts about this tragedy can do no better than study this book along with Larry Sneed's "No More Silence" -books written by authors who use common sense and erudtion to explain why and how Kennedy was killed.

I'm currently writing a novel set around the JFK assassination and when I saw this book reviewed in the Boston Globe, I literally made a dive for the bookstore! I've actually read it twice in a row! It portrays Ruth Paine as I've never seen her before--a somewhat naive, but big hearted, generous citizen who tried to please everyone, in some ways to her detriment. (as another reader said, in the tradition of Forrest Gump). The book reads like a heartwarming novel, and the characters are portrayed as very sympathetic--even LHO (whom I believe was a 'patsy' but that's another story.) As told through Mrs. Paine's eyes, the entire tragic episode comes to life and back to us vividly. As the reader, you'll realize that anyone in Middle America can become embroiled in an infamous plot. Mallon did a masterful job of endearing these people to us. Far removed from the documentary, textbookish tones of every book & TV show we've seen on this subject, it's readable, informative, and above all, entertaining....

I bought this book expecting a real debate between the three views mentioned, namely, Young Earth Creation, Old Earth Creation, and Theistic Evolution. The reason I found it disappointing is for two main reasons. None of the contributors really talk about the evidences for their position, but instead ramble on about their philosophy of science. Van Till spends most of his time trying to convince people to call his perspective the "fully-gifted creation perspective" instead of theistic evolution. To me, it really was just playing with words in order to avoid the negative Christian response to evolution. Does Van Till believe in Darwinian evolution or not? He says he does, so why not Theistic evolution? His view, as he expresses it, is really Deism, although he protests that it isn't. Read what he says and decide for yourself. My other major complaint with the book was that instead of the proponent of each view responding to the other two views, the responses were made by a third party "panel". I found this to be extremely unsatisfying.
The book wasn't totally without merit, and all three perspectives had some good things to say - but it got lost in a lot of wordiness about "words" which really took away from the book as a whole.

This book consists of essays by proponents of each of the three views (Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, and Theistic Evolution) and commentaries by practitioners of four disciplines: Biblical studies, theology, philosophy, and science. The entire discussion is concluded by summaries by Philip Johnson, an advocate of intelligent design, and Richard Bube, an advocate of theistic evolution.

The result is only partially successful. I am particularly impressed with the essays by Paul Nelson and John Mark Reynolds (Young Earth Creationism) and Howard J. Van Till (Theistic Evolution). Both give lucid and reasoned presentations of their views. I was pleasantly surprised to see Nelson and Reynolds, neither of whom I have read before, forego some of the more common but already discredited scientific arguments for a young Earth. Van Till presents a well thought-out and challenging integration of science and theology.

I am very disappointed by the commentaries, however. My first complaint is that the commentators sometimes seem unwilling to critique the essays primarily within their own expertises. For instance, John Jefferson Davis spends much of his space discussing the fossil record. On the one hand, none of the other commentators talk about this important piece of evidence. On the other hand, I wish the editors could have found someone other than a theologian to do this.

My second, more serious complaint is that each of the four commentators speaks entirely from an Old Earth Creationist perspective. In fact, Walter Bradley (who is supposed to provide criticism from a scientific perspective) uses the space allotted for commentary on the Old Earth Creationist perspective to attack the positions later presented in the Theistic Evolution essay. The reader is deprived of any scientific critique of the Old Earth Creationist view and instead finds a philosophical objection to a view not even presented yet. I find that entirely inappropriate.

As a brief introduction to the thinking in the three perspectives on creation and evolution, the primary essays in this book are very good. They each present some of the strengths and weaknesses of their own positions. These are not explored fully, but each essay is well referenced for further reading. The commentaries could have benefited by a better selection of commentators, however.

i've read in the field of creation-evolution for nearly 30 years now, from the _genesis flood_ to _darwin's dangerous idea_. that certainly doesn't make me an expert, only a concerned layman. this book is addressed by christian's to christian's, not that anyone outside of that community won't get a great deal out of the discussion only that the emotional desire/impetus to seek answers pushes christian's with a high view of scripture to try to reconcile the two biggies in their lives: science looking at general revelation and theology looking at scriptures. if you're not part of this community it is much easier just to ask "so what?" and not to understand why this is such a personal topic.

this is a first book, that is suitable for educated people to delve into a topic where many of the other books in this field/topic presume a background in either science or theology, or where the books are so stridently biased as to be "preaching to the choir" and put off 'newbies' with their presentation.

the issues are presented well enough that i think if someone finishes the book they will have a reasonable idea of what the problems are and where the different parts are most concerned in the discussion. it is not a scientific or theologically based book but rather philosophic. it presents concerns from each viewpoint, thus showing relative priorities in what each person discusses first and critisies as lacking emphasis in the other viewpoints. this is one value in a debate type of format, it can leave you with a prioritized idea of what people find important in the issues.

one problem however with this debate framework is that each person reading the book who already have committments to issues or positions tend to cheer for their side and boo down the opposing sides. this is evident from the reviews posted here, the young earth creation team is not the big names in the field, so it looks like in suffers from lack of heroes. nay, the two philosophers defend the position well given the page constraints they faced.

there is one issue running through the book i wished everyone had addressed in a more explicit matter, that is the difference in accepting the functional materialism of science versus the uncritical acceptance of a materialist world and life view of scientism. there is much confusion between the two, you can see it in much YEC criticism, in this book as well, of both progressive creationism and theistic evolution. naturalism is the idea that what we see is what we get, no god's behind the curtain, no skyhooks to come down and rescue us. there must be a distinction between how science uses this idea as a working hypothesis, as a functional means to an end, versus how a philosophy uses it as an axiom. of the 3 viewpoints, only vantil talks to the separation of the two. the YEC's fault the other two positions as if they accepted the materialism/naturalism as a deep committment in their systems. which as christian's is simply unacceptable from the beginning.

i liked the book. i think if you need a place to start it supplies one. however if you are already committed to a position you would be better off served by jumping straight to one of the major works in each viewpoint. and interact with that author without the polemics that form the debate structure of the book.