This is a really super book. Normally, each time you pick
up a self-help book it is abstract, nothing concrete, no examples
or scenarios. This books really lays it all out. It gives you
practical examples, question and answers! My child is enjoying
the exercises as well.

Thank you.

The approach on this book brought almost inmediate results as I helped my son with certain anxieties. It was like magic! Very good tool. Thanks

My teenager suffers from PTSD - his anxiety is so sky high that he was rarely going to school. After a years worth of visits to psychiatrists and medication which was not working, I purchased this book and put it in action the week it arrived. My son had not made it to school on a Monday or Tuesday since the school year began - after one session of "realistic thinking" on Sunday nite - he went to school Monday! He was then able to go all week - even to midterm exams! On the following Sunday nite his anxiety began again and we started another round of realistic thinking - he made it to school. You must try this book - it is excellent!

I grooved on most of the chapters.
They explained the routing protocols really good, but when it came time for actual configuration, the book kind of lacked. I think it would have been nice if we saw a real life example, especially for the config file syntax.

There were some chapters that I just didnt see a point to. The chapter 'Building a Routing Kernel' was one of them. It spent more time on showing LILO syntax and other basic informatin rather than what you actually need for a routing kernel. (ie, what protocols to compile, why choose them, should i add firewall support, etc)

I also found the book rather out of order. It starts you off explaining RIP, RIP-2, then goes into OSPF, BGP, and on and on. For the first section of the book, this really makes your head spin. _And then_ after all of that, they explain to you IPv4 addressing...

All in all, the majority of the information was good. It introduced me to such things as CIDR, multicast routing, OSPF, and BGP. I would recommend it to people who have a comfortable/solid understanding of basic linux and a comfortable understanding of TCP/IP. This is definately not a beginners book, nor is it an experts book. If you're right in the middle, you might learn a thing or two from this.

A good primer for users wanting to know about Linux Routing. A cool book, in that I have not seen one on tihs topic before. The writing is clear and concise. It could have used a little more detail on some subjects, but overall a good read.

I read this book in 88 after my son was diagnosed with schizophrenia, and so much is similar to what I have lived. My husband and my other son did not understand why I was protecting him, they were reacting like the doctors the Hinkleys have seen before everything broke loose. I knew he was sick, and I did what Mrs Hinkley did. We have progressed in the field of mental illness, but there is still so much to be done. I wish all parents of mentally disabled people could share their pain. Go to A.M.I.' I know this not a true review of the book, but the book is a true review of the pain we suffer. Thank you for allowing me to share my thoughts with others.

Thought this one would be dull but it's incredibly interesting, the story of an average American family and the trials of discovering their son's mental illness. Worth reading!

During the time of the Revolutionary War, Katie's family were loyalists and needed to hide when the Rebels come into their house to raid it. Katie hides in a trunk away from her family because she didn't want to leave the house. She is spotted by a Rebel who is their neighbor. Katie used to be best friends with his daughter, but now they are no longer allowed to see each other because their families disagree on England's rule over the Colonies. Katie is unsure what will happen now that she's been spotted. This book helps my seventh grade students (or any reader), clarify who are the Tories, Rebels, Loyalists, Yankees, Redcoats and Patriots. The book is based on a true story of one of the author's ancestors.

I assume you have seen a description of the book already. The book is good enough to be recommended overall, but there were some disappointments. First, the justice does not stay long on his professed topic, the interpretation of statutes, but goes over into constitutional interpretation. Those who make replies follow gladly, and there is really little on the whole about statutory instead of constitutional interpretation. Moreover, the justice did not make it clear enough to me how his textualist philosophy differs from literalism, which he explicitly disavows. Also dissappointing is that I think the justice could have made a much stronger case for what I do glean to be his philosophy by invoking legal principles already understood when the constitution was written, and especially by invoking Justice Story's brilliant decision in Martin v Hunter's Lessee. In that decision rules of constitutional interpretation are stated clearly and authoritatively, and are much along the lines of what Scalia advocates. Lastly, Justice Scalia's essay does not measure up to the keenness of insight and language he shows in his best dissents, though there are some good moments. Despite these drawbacks, it is a very thought- provoking work and its brevity gives one less of an excuse for not reading it. It is largely free of technical vocabulary and there are no arcane discussions.

The centerpiece of this excellent book is an essay called "Common Law Courts in a Civil Law System," where Justice Scalia outlines and defends his theory of statutory and constitutional interpretation. The second part of the book has reactions from three law professors and an historian. Scalia then responds in a (testy) Afterwards that suggests that he doesn't take criticism well.

Scalia, a judge, believes that judges seek to grab power by covertly making laws. Prior to the 20th century, they made laws by manipulating common law precedents in the guise of "interpretation." The adoption of the Constitution and the growth of written laws should have ended this chicanery but didn't -- judges used the concept of "legislative intent" to evade the clear meaning of statutes and invented the notion of an "evolving constitution" to rewrite constitutional law as they saw fit.

To combat these evils, Scalia wants judges to decide cases by applying the "original meaning" of a statute or constitutional clause -- a strategy he calls "textualism." He has many intelligent things to say about statutory interpretation. Unfortunately, his theory of constitutional interpretation is a mess. Nothing in the text of the Constitution endorses "textualism" or any other rigid interpretive approach; on the contrary, the document's many vague, open-ended clauses made it inevitable that courts would create a "common law" of the Constitution. Historical investigations into "original meaning" may not yield certain, non-manipulable results, as shown by the disagreements among historians in this area. Clauses such as the First Amendment may not have had a clear "original meaning" at all.

No one in 2003, not even conservative jurists, really wants the country to be ruled by the "original meaning" of the Constitution. Freezing the Constitution in the understandings of 1791 or 1868 would only lead to permanent divisive pressures to amend the Constitution in ways that would probably horrify conservatives like Scalia. The Justice knows this. He accepts the legitimacy of stare decisis as an exception to textualism, even though it requires judges to uphold "wrong" Constituional decisions. He also knows that courts grappling with novel areas like TV broadcasting will find little guidance in the "original meaning" of the First Amendment: as Scalia concedes, "In such new fields, the Court must follow the trajectory of the First Amendment" -- "trajectory" being Scalia's euphemism for a Constitutional "common law."

The biggest disappointment is Scalia's failure to give an historically-informed, "inside" view of how the Supreme Court adjudicates cases, weighs political and legal factors, and adapts the Constitution to changing social circumstances in a way that preserves the Court's legitimacy. This would have given the reader a basis for deciding whether or not our affairs are sensibly arranged. Instead, Scalia reverts to the cliche that judicial lawmaking is undemocratic. He's right, it is, big deal. So is the Senate. So is the electoral college. And so are many other exceptions to pure democracy that Americans have put up with over the centuries. The question is not whether a limited judicial role in lawmaking is undemocratic. The question is whether it is bad.

To answer that question, we need to know how institutions function and interact in practice. Scalia fails on this score, reverting to cliches rather than analysis. True, federal judges are unelected -- but they are also above the fray of everyday politics, do their business case by case, give reasons for their decisions, and are subject to long-distance political control through the appointments process. Legislators, on the other hand, are indeed elected by the voters -- but they are also corruptible, short-sighted, subject to sleazy pressures, and unrepresentative of the electorate (how many black women are in the Congress?). Scalia should have discussed these institutional realities. Instead, he grinds an axe on behalf of a theory of adjudication that has never been followed in practice and never will be -- least of all by him.

"A Matter of Interpretation" is brief, thought-provoking, and jargon-free. The subject matter is important. It deserves a rating of five stars. I gave it only four because Scalia himself deserves only three.

This book is a must for anyone interested in the debate surrounding statutory interpretation and constitutional law. I began law school and before I knew anything - I mean a TOTALLY blank slate - about the Justices on the Supreme Court I quickly learned that I was "supposed" to hate Justice Scalia because he is a "stupid racist/facist/sexist" etc. Ironically, the more I learn about Scalia the more I understand why he is hated by the liberal left: Scalia doesn't sell out the law to political correctness. I, for one, admire that, but I don't pretend that isn't so because of my own political ideology. However, it is certain that Scalia is a brilliant and learned jurist, and, regardless of your politics, his judicial philosophy is wonderful to study.

Reserve judgment on Scalia and his Textualism until you have read, understand, and have digested the debate and Scalia's position. Be sure to ask yourself throughout the book: is the law certain? If not, ought the law be certain? If so, how ought one interpret statutes to facilitate and/or preserve the most possible certainty in the law? To underestimate Scalia is unfortunate; to dismiss him because he doesn't decide cases "your way," without considering his jurisprudence, is flat out ignorant.

A solid revision of a very useful textbook and clinical practice resource. Numerous typographical and typesetting errors will annoy those who expect more from the publishers of this social work classic, who appear to have rushed publication. Infotrac has only marginal value to working professionals and no value for enrolled students with library access. Wait for the second printing or stick with the 5th edition if you can.

I had this book last semester as a MSW student at WVU. I have found it useful as a resource guide for my current practice as a family-based therapist as well. I would recommend this book to all those out there in practice.

Deborah M. Migyanko, BSW

I came across this and am outraged. I was involved in the Kelly Ann Tinyes murder and I know for a fact that Mr. Ronald J. Watkins did not have permission by the families or neighbors to write such a false, no truth whatsoever to his poor attempt to write a good book about a girl, let alone a case he knew nothing about.

He may have researched, but certain facts...were...far from the truth and what had happened...In Ronald's book, he stats that he used different names to protect the people on the block and give them privacy. I don't see the point 'cause anyone who is anyone knows who everyone is on this block because the same people never moved off of it. Not even the Golubs.

And about that six-year old little girl who witnessed the murder was for a FACT, there and it was documented by Police and Detectives that she was a witness but was not allowed to testify because of her age. Where was the Detective that interviewed this girl that burst out into tears saying "I can't believe this girl was here. Everything she said without us telling her has been correct."...I think this book was a poor attempt to speak any truth on such a horrible act. Most information was made up and wrong...wish it was never written, as it only adds to our pain of the girl we once knew that's being sold out for another readers enjoyment...I would not even waste the money to buy this book.. Not because I don't want to truth to be heard, but because this book was poorly thrown together and not at all accurate!!!!!

The people on Horton Road cannot fight, nor do anything about what is published about them, their names or what happened in that terrible day of March. But as painful as it is for us, we can post to let you readers know about us, and the real thruth you wouldn't know.

Only the residents of Valley Stream & the Five Towns in Long Island know more than any DNA testing, or evidence gathering by the Nassau County PD!!

Robert did not act alone ... where is the evidence on the others? Did he perchance cover-up after brother & friend?? My daughter dated the *friend* after the incident ..

Matter-of-fact .. last checked the *friend* is a basket case {{from psychiatric > thorzine > GUILT}} ... so why is Robert the only one in jail?

Did he perchance take the fall for the others? Or was Nassau County's precinct & detectives negligent?

I remember how this senseless murder had made headlines for months. The question that everyone wants to know, but it's not likely to be answered is, "why?". I think the book was interesting enough, but would have made for a better read if we knew more about the Golub family. All we really find out is that they had a nice looking house on the outside and a pigsty on the inside.

I definately believe Robert Golub acted alone and didn't take the fall for his brother or his brother's friend(s). I don't think anyone would be that self sacrificing. I think Detective Wells' theory was the only one closet to the truth. Robert Golub probably watched the beautiful teenager in her daily routine and then his sick mind took over. I believe he made the phone to Kelly and pretended to be John Jay. He might have led the young girl down the basement by telling her his brother was down there.

Another part of this horrible story that has me wondering, is why would the Golub's remain in that house? The fact that a brutal murder took place in that house, would be enough to have me running out of the house with just the clothes on my back. They claim they couldn't afford to move however, I can remember neighbors and Tinyes family members saying they would chip in and buy the house, tear it down and put a small park there. I could be wrong, but I don't think I am.

I think there was so much more to the Golub family then a dirty home, I just wish it had been explored.

This book is the latest in a trend of overrated collections that seek to collect significant Western destinations and interpret them (Think Ian Frazier's "Great Plains" and Tim Egan's, "Lasso the Wind.") This book might have been recommendable twenty years ago but today it seems a bit behind the curve, as every professor with access to a rental car seems to be cranking these things out. Most of the topics within GhostWest have been covered more skillfully by other writers, and the author's own engagement seems distant at times. What is intended to seem like an insight-laden road trip instead reads like the measured transcript of a ford Aerostar full of Cather scholars on their way to the post-symposium bash at Applebee's.

It seems anyone who started backpacking when they were young is now a Western expert, and expertise consists of making insightless comments about the savage development boom in Colorado and the addled, uncurious nature of our tourist population. Discourse on the West demands more. And do we really need to hear what the author thinks about war? I'd rather hear what my crazy, tax protesting neighbor thinks about toe jam.

Ronald seeks to insert the element of ghosts in this book, which given the title, seems appropriate. However, sometimes it seems incongruous and inappropriate, and grasps for ghostly significance are inserted more frequently than ads for personal injury laywers in an episode of Jerry Springer. And if you are going to talk about Federal damlord Floyd Dominy, it might make sense to spell his name correctly (or at least consistently) throughout the book.

If you want to understand Man's uneasy relationship to the West, and how he wrestles with very palpable ghosts, go fish the Encampment River in Wyoming, or walk through the Badlands. Bring a copy of "Hole in the Sky" by William Kittredge, or "The NineMile Wolves" by Rick Bass. But leave this book on the shelf.