This is a classic example of a beautifully written non fiction piece...these are hard to come by! Good job, Mr. Prof. Scrivener. Bravo! Bravo!

The collective effort of Jonathon Shackleton (Antarctic special and a cousin of the famed explorer) and biographer John Mackenna, Shackleton: An Irishman In Antarctica is an informed and informative portrayal of Ernest Shackleton's historic, dramatic, highly dangerous South Pole expedition. Even though the voyage's ultimately failed to achieve it's stated goal, and Shackleton's crew were stranded on ice floes, all hands worked together to survive for a year before the perilous return to civilization could be made. Not a single man died in Shackleton's expedition, a credit to Shackleton's leadership and determination. His is a profound, inspirational, and keenly engaging story which is very highly recommended reading.

I had to use this book for my sociology class in college.

It is a pretty good book that shows different aspects of society

through 4 main sociological concepts. I will not be selling my

copy back at the end of the semester for sure....

With several editions of this book available, this review refers to the original 1920 publication. The book is an enjoyable and delightful account of Jedediah Smith and the men in his immediate circle who, over a period of eight years, explored and trapped the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific during the years 1823-1831. Although I did come across a few historical inaccuracies, this can be attributed to the fact that some documentation, letters, journals, etc. did not surface till later dates. For instance, James Clyman was with Smith during many of these exploits, and his "Journal of a Mountain Man" wasn't published until 1928. Dale Morgan's "Jedediah Smith And The Opening Of The West" which was published in 1953, gives the reader a more in depth study (with more historical documentation available at the time) into the character, achievements and defeats of this remarkable man. Neihardt's writing style is to be commended though, as he is very descriptive and expressive.

The author not only takes a stand and expresses an opinion, he backs up his views with specific examples. He dispels many myths about individual liberties and makes a convincing argument why liberty is so essential to our existence. It is somewhat frightening to learn about the very real errosion of our liberty. This book brings all of this to light is a very readable and interesting presentation.

Landau understands the dimensions of Jamesian literature within the modern constraints of 90's academics; what surpasses the texts is neither its writerliness nor its readerliness, but the pedantics of beauracademics.

"a thing divided" is about double standards, two-facedness, equivocation, ambiguity, apartheid, and the nothingness which the deconstruction of binarism left behind it in its dormant wake.

intellect had two chances; now, undoubtedly, it has none

In politics, many different rules and regulations create problems for consumers. Regulations that cause people to die - or contribute to their deaths - should bear the highest possible level of scrutiny. In this book, medical doctor and former Food and Drug Administration official Henry Miller addresses problems with the way the FDA reviews and approves new medicines. His analysis is extremely important because, when the government delays the introduction of critical medical innovations, people can die.

The key point in Miller's argument is that imposing excessive regulatory costs on American pharmaceutical firms forces them to experience corporate mergers, reduced competition, and higher prices. In the long run, this leads companies to focus on shorter-term, lower-risk research and development intended for larger patient populations. Thus, smaller groups of patients in need of new medical innovations that require long-term study at higher per-capita costs suffer the most from delays in approving new products.

Miller addresses the myth that there must be a tradeoff between promoting more efficient drug research and improving drug safety. Efficiency and safety can both be improved simultaneously by introducing competition where regulatory oversight has become excessive and changing the FDA's role in the process. Rather than evaluating data itself, it should allow other organizations to evaluate clinical testing and focus on monitoring their efforts instead.

A key problem that many drug manufacturers face is that regulations are not static. When new rules are enacted, regulators generally adopt narrow interpretations of them, but broaden those interpretations as time goes on. Because of this, regulators must be viewed as a special interest group - expanding their turf by skirting congressional oversight and gradually inflating burdens for manufacturers underneath the radar screen.

These problems lead many companies to alter their research priorities. Instead of focusing solely on prospective benefits for consumers when choosing which products to develop, firms must account for potential regulatory costs as well. The high costs of getting drugs approved reduces the diversity of products being prepared - leading many companies to devote more energy to dealing with the regulatory apparatus. Innovation suffers as a result.

The biggest problem with the FDA's current system, though, is its lack of accountability to the public. Consumers cannot participate in its product-review process and cannot obtain judicial review of its decisions. In addition, seldom is information about delayed or rejected drugs and medical devices made available to the media. Thus, the nature of the evaluation process itself reduces consumers' freedom of choice and individual autonomy. It leads many frustrated consumers to travel abroad to obtain safe drugs and services not available here in the U.S.

Fortunately, Miller offers a solution to the problem: allow independent, non-profit drug certifying bodies - instead of the FDA - to review test results from companies. Then allow the FDA to monitor the technical, scientific, and managerial expertise of these bodies to ensure they perform proper reviews. This would be similar to OSHA's accreditation process for testing laboratories. It would also introduce much needed competition, innovation, and efficiency into the oversight process and help alleviate many of the perverse incentives regulators face when interpreting new standards.

Overall, America's drug review procedure is in need of reform. Excessive regulations that lead to increased suffering or death among consumers should be repealed. In addition, when the regulatory process itself delays new technologies or innovations that can reduce suffering or death among the public, the procedure itself should be closely examined. Miller's book sheds new light on a frequently-ignored cost of overregulation: how preventing the adoption of new products or services that save lives can be just as costly as overlooking those that cost lives. His arguments should be given careful consideration by anyone who is concerned about the state of health care in the United States.

Roger Parloff's "Triple Jeopardy" should be required reading for any American interested in our system of justice. It should be included in the curriculum of all law schools. And any trial attorney who isn't familiar with this case is at a great disadvantage. By far, one of the best books on modern American criminal justice. And anyone who is still convinced, after reading the Knapp case, that the death penalty is justified, should just read this book once more ! Beautifully written. Brilliantly analyzed . A real treasure. Take a chance and read it. You will not regret it.

John Dickson Carr, who wrote also under the name Carter Dickson (as he did The Unicorn Murders) raised ingenuity to the level of genius, as Kingsley Amis once put it in an essy of the genre. Carr, with apologies to Christie and Queen, was, as to constructing a puzzling whodunnit, in a class by himself, a man without peer.

Whether his detective was Gideon Fell (in those mysteries he wrote under his own name of Carr) or Sir Henry Merrivale (Carter Dickson), he was the supreme master of the classic detective story, and The Unicorn Murders is Carter Dickson at his best.

He was adept at creating atmosphere and was expert at both high and low humor (See The Arabian Night's Murders), and he could pace a story with suspense like no one else (I defy anyone to read the first chapter of The Burning Court and say in all honesty he is not compelled to continue), but what he did that nobody achieved to the extent he did was write stories that dealt with impossible murders--either locked room or miracle murders that would later be reveled to have a rational explanation.

At his best, Carr/Dickson was so good that he usually had some other other characters give an explantion that sounded entirely plausible before Fell or H.M. shot it down and gave the real explanation. These wrong solutions would have been lesser writers meat and drink. Read the stuff in the '30's and '40's.

He also wrote a history in detective story fashion in the '30's, The Murder of Sir Edmund Godfrey, that is a masterpiece. Great history and great detection.

The creators of this book did a great job. I especially liked the photo of Hillary with the North Vietnamese AA gun . . .