This book was helpful in seeing how conservative institutions have influenced numerous issues, but it did have several flaws. I would recommend it, as there are few books on the topic, and due to the quality of the research, but with these disclaimers:

1. The authors come from a decidedly left-of-center perspective, which tilts how they view the world. Hence a moderate group may be described as a mildly conservative one. This is not a major flaw obviously. 2. Much of the material is rather dry, as in most real research. This isn't pleasure reading, and shouldn't be bought as such. 3. Satire is used way too much in title headings - it's not as bad as in some books, but pretty blatant, and it distracts from the quality of the work. 4. The opinion that liberals and others on the left should be an equal part of the debate so that we get a balanced picture is good, but the idea that those groups should rely more on think tanks and foundations is silly. The book's major point that I got is how those vehicles remove thought from the process in favor of ideology, and encourage close-mindedness. If liberals copy think tank stratagems, it's their loss. I personally would hope all ideologies abandon these inherently systems.

Anyhow, I'd recommend buying this or borrowing it from the library, but with these reservations and the caveat that you shouldn't expect too much.

"Follow The Money", deep throat told Woodward and Burnstein. No Mercy does exactly that. It traces the spider web of think tanks, endowments, and conservative politics from group to group. The authors provide an excellent path from the eugenics and racist Pioneer fund in the early '30s and how it, and other groups, intermingle. The details on the ultrasecret Council on Foriegn Policy, the Landmark legal foundation, and many, many others.

In fairness to the reader, this book is not a light read. The story is not fluid. It's a book for the serious political researcher, journalist, or political scientist.

Richard Gentry's book is full of information, other researcher's information. I was disappointed in the constant use of other's ideas. I do find the benchmarks at the end to useful. I was hoping, however, for new ideas to add on to other leaders in educations research, instead it was just revisited again.

Richard Gentry's "Literacy Map" is a concise guide for the teaching of reading and writing in the primary classroom. He has included many excellent literacy assessments followed by clear examples of what to do with the results of these assessments. All his recommended teaching practices are easy to implement, require few "extra" materials, and are not program-specific. The book is divided by grade level, making it easy to locate what is appropriate for the reader's grade level. Gentry makes a clear case for the reciprocity of reading and writing, as well as acknowledging the importance of using assessment to guide instruction.

In this age of U.S. cultural diversity, we have achieved some level of tolerance and respect for most racial, ethnic and religious minorities. But the Romany people--or Gypsies--who are now losing more people in Eastern Europe to hate-related murder than at any time since the Holocaust--have not been heard: Even in America, most people know nothing of the Romany history, which included enslavement, and resultant poverty and misfortune. "Classics" like this one teach intolerance by playing on the common stereotype of Gypsies as fortune-tellers, thieves and kidnappers. Please think twice before buying a book that inflicts such a stereotype on others. Alyssa A. Lappen

This book features all our favorite Madeline characters, in a flight of fantasy that has them caught up in a Gypsy circus. The story is fun, some of the rhymes a little strained, but is the illustrations that make this book such a pleasure for readers of all ages. The only risk with this book is that you may be called on to read it again and again by your young audience.

The preliminary discourses are a surprisingly entertaining description of D'Alembert's ideas about knowledge and learning. This introduction to the great Encyclopedia of Diderot is an important work of the Enlightenment in itself.

Like most of the Totem Introducing series, I thought Introducing Baudrillard was going to be not quite in depth and truely lacking. Where Introducing Postmodernism was medicore but attempted to go in depth, Introducing Baudrillard is consistently shallow.

My main gripe is the lack of clearity, and it's illogical plot of Baudrillard's philosophical development. And the way book is written is flat out horrible, which makes the whole read incomprehrensible.

If your an undergrad student looking to learn about contemporary and postmodern philosophy like myself, well FORGET INTRODUCING BAUDRILLARD!

The "Introducing" series are very effective in my view because they both go in depth with the critical theories or foundations of a certain thinker and go through their less significant points. I think seeing all the points without sustaining all belief into the ideas of a person like Baudrillard is great by not getting too caught up in their claims. "Introducing Baudrillard" compares his significance as a thinker to other contemporary and past philosophy very well and being familiar with the intensity of Baudrillard's claims is well worth the time and money.

Ignore the above - like all the books in the Introducing series, this is an exceptionally coherent and successful overview. The format is particularly appropriate and successful in the case of Baudrillard, and it is possible for the intelligent reader to grasp all his key ideas. The best introduction to his thought.

It's pretty easy to support free speech when someone says something you agree with and pretty easy to dismiss free speech when someone says something you don't like.

Why do we want to defend Nazi's? Because we don't want to follow in their footsteps - we want to defend freedom.

For benefit of the authors who apparently got little out of law school I will follow with the first amendment:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The book, while well written and apparently persuasive to those who are easily swayed by sentimental and emotional arguments, simply gives a one-sided view on why the first ammendment does not give "free speech". As Justice Burger said, "No law means no law", and the authors tend not to agree. Read for a laugh.

Well written. I disagree totally with the author's rationale. They are off base and do not make sense for what they are arguing against.