A good summary of some of the rides in San Diego. The instructions are pretty good (I have had a little trouble almost every description) but the author is a little conservative regarding open areas. He describes areas as closed that other guidebooks, rangers etc. say are wide open. It's like a trail book written by a lawyer who is afraid of getting sued. So take the boundary descriptions with a gain of salt. Otherwise an excellent overview of trails in far Southern CA.

A Very Good Book from one of the best thrill authors in the U.S.!

Although somewhat dated, this book is an excellent overview of the changing views on school leadership we see today. Much of this work is reflected in the new perspectoves provided by Senge and Sergiovanni, and will be helpful to anyone pursuing any of the varied forms of school leadership.

I'd give it 3 1/2 stars actually, if that were one of the options. This book, in a format of similar volumes, consists of contributions from four scholars who each give their point of view, followed by responses from the other three. Three of the authors more or less agree with one other in the reasons God commanded what the title dubs the "genocide" of the Canaanites (the reasons being those generally advanced by evangelical authors and given in the biblical text: to preserve Israel from idolatry, to judge the sins of the inhabitants of Canaan, etc.). Where they differ is in the meaning and application of "holy war" or "Yahweh war" for today. None believes we should engage in physical holy war, but for example, one author sees it as a model for spiritual warfare in the church.

C. S. Cowles provides a lively counterpoint to the other three, as his position is essentially that God never did command the destruction of the Canaanites, nor would he; he was misconstrued or believed to have commanded it, but God is love and would never condone such a massacre. Unfortunately, his responses to each of the other authors, is simply along the same lines: God is love as revealed in Christ, and is not someone who commands the massacre of whole peoples. He chastises Eugene Merrill for a "clinical" analysis of the situation, as though there were no place for exegesis or philosophical analysis of ethics. He appears to believe in the reality of hell, and the same arguments he marshalls against "Yahweh war" could be extended to an all-embracing universalism.

Recently I read the book "The Pianist," on which the recent movie was based. At the end, they include excerpts from the diary of a German soldier who had helped the author, Wladyslaw Szpilman, to hide and to survive. In his diary, maybe 4 or 5 times the German solider says that the Germans did such horrible things to the Jews and to others, they will have to suffer, innocent and guilty alike, one and all. It was amazing to me that someone who lived through the Holocaust and participated in its machinery, could state that even innocent people will have to die as a result of Germany's wickedness -- whereas Cowles, who I take it has a fairly comfortable life (like many of us in this country) as an American professor, was quick to say, how dare anyone say that God would order the killing of "innocent" Canaanites.

The book did a better job at answer the question, why can't we destroy people today, in the church age, than at answering, how can we justify the destruction of the Canaanites in the Old Testament? I felt a stronger apologetic was needed in light of current events (Israelis/Palestinians; Tutsis/Hutus; Bosnia).

As a totally different evangelical point of view, Glenn Miller in his web site "Christian Think-Tank" argues that deportation and people movements are a better description of what took place; only a small portion of the people, those who did not re-locate, were put to death. ...

In any event, if one thinks that God justly commanded the killing of the Canaanites, I am not sure that "genocide" is a helpful word, as useful as it is in grabbing attention. The word carries overtones of injustice and inhumanity -- precisely what three of the authors believe was NOT involved, since it came at God's command.

The book excels at laying out the pattern and identifying marks of "Yahweh war" vs. other kinds of war.

Kevin Spoon and his proudly non-conformist friend Mason Mintz walk six miles early one morning in order to be the first customers at a new burger franchise -- Spaceburgers. There they frolic and feast and have a wonderful time. Pinkwater's vocabulary isn't as hilarious as usual, and the overall effect is indeed uneven as Horn Book says, but it went over well in my son's first grade class. Spaceburgers shows the reader a warm male friendship, and reminds us of why it's so important to know how to look for fun in unexpected places. Mason, who always wears a checked hat and prefers "Ho!" to "Hi!", isn't like the other boys -- he's a lot more fun.

Davis's book is for young people, but I was surprised of the content and well written material. One could guess this was an adult book.
Davis is a black American and of a general liberal bent. As you read, you can tell the side he favored in this war--the Loyalists. He generally glosses over the abuses the Republican government commited during the Civil War, but expands on the attrocities perpetrated by Franco's forces. Oh well, Davis can slant the way history is perceived.
I would say this is a well written book, if one overcomes the slant of Davis's writing. If one wants a more detailed analysis, read elsewhere.

An interesting collection of essays by different historians,this book does an excellent job of introducing the beginning university student to a number of issues related to Stalinism and historical methodology(somehow unconsciously);however,the lack of footnotes/endnotes makes this undertaking less credible and useful for more advanced readers.

A great book! Structured in a way that even beginners have a use of it. A lot of well choosen examples illustrating the power of spatial-analysis. It shows a way to higher levels of statistics. Very good and quite unique in it's way! It is worth it's money. A view bugs less would make it even more recommendable.

Be warned, this volume reads like a doctoral thesis. Lots of facts and footnotes, but not much excitement. Daniel Peris presents a Soviet Union, great on sloganeering, but not much in the action department. This should be a warning to our leaders here in the U.S., you cannot attack a situation by creating a bureaucracy, one need only look at our so-called "war on drugs." But I digress. The author focuses solely on the Soviet regime's efforts to remove Russian Orthodoxy from the life of the typical Soviet peasant or worker. I would like to have known more on how this organization approached Islam and other non-Christian religions in the hinterlands. As we approach the millenium, U.S. society has managed to accomplish, what a Soviet bureacrcy couldn't, the eradication of religion from the public square. The difference being is that we, as a people, simply appealed to society's base insticts.

Full of university buzzwords and controversial advice regarding tenure and department structures, this book should be on the reading list of academic administrators, particularly those involved in distance learning, continuing education, and corporate education.

The authors essentially track changes in academia, point to new pressures on universities, and warn that universities that fail to make "strategic choices" will be left behind. These pressures include those exerted by new technology, workforce needs (the "demand for lifelong learning") and trends such as distance learning and experiential learning.

Whether the authors are entirely correct or not, these are the hot issues in academia today. Each week, the Chronicle of Higher Education features at least one article on one of these topics. Industry, IT and workforce needs plus technology developments are all forces putting pressure on universities and it will be interesting to see what the typical State U looks like twenty years from now.

All of that said, this book is really difficult to get through. Written by three authors, it would benefit greatly from the strong hand of one good editor. There is repetition from one chapter to the next, such that the reader is at risk of nodding off just when new information might appear.

Therefore, it's a mixed bag. Hard to read, but really full of timely material for those in academic administration.