im not going call these men racist or bigots, because there not. i belive there reasons for doing this book were valid enough, however, i think its another example of, 'well if some negroes can be prejudice, that negates white racism.' now i dont know if thats the authors motivation, but its a tacit argument i see being used more and more by certain folks. its the "they can go into a bank and eat at any restaurant, so now racism is not a problem." thats what i felt when reading this book. also, i feel there studys showing higher levels of "anti-semitism" in the black community are grossly exerageted.
i lived in san diego, and all my white frinds were extremly "anti semitic". i dont know if they hated jews, but always were saying things that would be deemed "insensitive"... my white friends they would constanly say things like "don't be a jew, give me some" which means they wanted you to share whatever you had. they always made little comments like that and i would be schocked they were so open with saying such things. i never heard any of my black friends say anything of this nature. i have heard black people say when talking about something "well you know hes a jew", but nothing beyond. now that statement implies something, but no one would verbalize what its suppose to mean.

this is why i cant trust there "data". you never know if someone is lying no matter how scientific the study is. if someone asked you a question about disliking blacks or jews, do you honestly think that someone will admit so, even if it is supposed to be anonymous. hell no. then racist people go and say, look at how high the anti semitism level is in the black community.
[on a side not i suggest you read the book my cornell west and rabbi lerner:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0452275911/qid=1038014099/sr=2-2/ref=sr_2_2/104-6489853-4203118

also, i am not and have not considered myself an "afrocentrist", but there total refusal to investagate any claims of the "afrocentrist" is pathetic. [by the way, when they used the term 'afrocentrism' it always seemed to be conveyed in a negative tone as though its tottaly invaild position to hold such beliefs.] they try to negate any claims by saying there cospiriacie theorist, and that the more education a black person has, the more likely you are to belive such things. maybe educated blacks belive such things because they have studied them, and historical evidence can prove such things.
{on a side note i suggest you search books by CHEIKH ANTA DIOP since he was one of many that has done extensive sceintific research in this field}

i dunno if i liked this book. it seemed a little one sided and somewhat suspicious. sure, 2 white men can do a book on black america and its culture, but i feel they are short sided and dont throughly explore why black people have the views they do. i also feel that the anti semitism was greatly exagerated. because jesse jackson or al sharpton said something that was anti semitic 20 years ago dosent mean they still are, or that all black people are. why dosent he quote some other christian evangelist like phill grham and his numerous anti semitic and anti everything remarks.

this book was ok. i dont think the authors mean any harm, i just dont agree with most of there data, though some of its truthfull.

as a counter, i suggest you read that book by cornell west and rabbi learner, as well as "race matters" by cornell west which is an excellent book.

I really wanted to like this book, but I found it hard to get through. The villains are identified early in the book, so the mystery element disappears. The characters are all so serious that there is no humor. I realize it is not a comedy, but a light moment here or there would make the characters seem human. What an unbelievably dreary collection of people. The technical elements seem to be correct if that is what you are looking for.

It takes a ... what? It takes more than this book recognizes to improve education. The rhetoric here implies that the so-called "reform" movement is the way to cure school ills. To most teachers, however, this is simply another year's bureaucratic fad to morph educators into paper pushers. Although I found several insights here, and detailed information on six inner-city school districts, I was somewhat amazed by two important omissions: teachers and students. Teacher unions were trivialized by the suggestion that each little school decide, on their own, if they want to unionize.The writer recommends "hiring halls" for teachers, putting us on a level with farm workers and factory hands. This writing shows absolutely no understanding about why teachers need unions or how such organizations originated.

This writer clearly identifies a target audience -- mayors, civic leaders and school board members. By decision, it excludes teachers and students. It's sad to think -- and I've seen this happen -- that ivory tower bureaucrarts actually make decisions based on this type of dubious theory rather than getting down in the trenches with the reality of the classroom.

Content here is peppered with educratic jargon which twists other terminology into bastardized educational theories. School "incubators" make me think of premature babies."Real dollar budgets" make me wonder if bureaucrats are playing Monopoly with our taxes. "CEO Strong Schools strategy" pretends that a principal, who is middle management, is a CEO. Get real. The only CEO in the school district is the superintendent who is hired by an elected school board.

This book, to it's credit, recognizes the inability of reform to reform anything (last paragraph, page 84). Any good book offers new insights and "policy churn" gets my prize here. Teachers are jaded by bandwagon bureaucrats who recycle new versions of old ideas, one after another, never saying, "stop this" or "drop that."

Hillary Clinton quotes the African proverb, "It Takes a Village." This book spins the idea into, "a city." I'm waiting for the next trendy realization for someone to discover that, "It takes a teacher."

To paraphrase A. S. Byatt, Leavis shows us the terrible, magnificent importance and urgency of English literature and simultaneously deprives us of any confidence in our own capacity to contribute to, or change it. This book is a classic example of his style. While Leavis's lack of equivocation is still thrilling, so totalising are his views that we are often left wondering if we even deserve to be thinking about the same issues. The problem with Leavis is not simply that he took a false position with regard to the relationship between culture and literature. The problem is that he, like Matthew Arnold before him, failed to acknowledge the ideological basis for his vision. Despite having aesthetic values which were clearly ideologically-informed, they both treated these values as if they were non-ideological. They saw their aesthetic choices as facts, necessarily ideology-free and non-negotiable. Arnold can be forgiven for such a view, living in the nineteenth century. For Leavis it was a luxury. For us, it is indefensible.

Throughout his life, Leavis steadfastly refused to defend his critical standards because he did not see them as choices which needed defending. Yet a defence of the Leavisite criteria - something which will make this book more meaningful to contemporary readers - can actually be mounted, and John Casey provides one in 'The Language of Criticism' (1966). This defence does not suggest Leavis's views are as unarguably true as he imagined them to be. Rather, it articulates the implied theory of art which underlies them, and thereby opens them up for serious debate: something which Leavis himself was never courageous enough to do.

The poor, repetitious writing may be due to the fact that there was a "group effort" preparing and writing the book. There are a lot of good insights comparing the "old economy" labor force and the "new economy" labor force. The reader, however, must perservere to get through the repetition and disorganization. There are few short but interesting case studies in Chapter 3, and lots of left-wing policy recommendations throughout the book.

Read the Microsoft documentation instead. This book is a thinly disguised rip-off of the Microsoft documentation padded with examples of dubious value. In 590 pages this book manages to add no value or information beyond the original documentation. That's quite an achievement.

If you want to learn ISAPI...think again. This was "hot" 2 years ago...now it is all but dead.

ISAPI's big promise was better performance and memory usage...ironic that it has now fallen in favor to the biggest performance pig of all web applications...ASP. In an age of fast machines and small web apps, rapid development and ease of use wins out over performance.

ISAPI is hard to learn, harder to get right, unstable, bug ridden (if written in MFC) and surprisingly inflexible.

Look, you're a smart person. You want to do the right thing. You don't need to subject yourself to the torture of learning ISAPI. Only hard-core programmers who are tasked with writing a custom web app that is going to get some VERY heavy traffic should even bother with ISAPI.

So why did I give this book 4 stars? There are no good ISAPI books out there. This one has the most information in it and will allow you the best chance to actually develop something that works. Get this book and hit Genusa's (now dusty) ISAPI site. Also spend a lot of time in the Microsoft knowledge base...there are plenty of workarounds and bugs to learn about too.

Keep in mind that with ISAPI you had better be a damn good programmer. If your DLL ever crashes...bye bye web server. This is harder than you think if you are doing "serious" web programming which includes database access.

Smart managers will not allow mission-critical web apps to be developed in ISAPI by a web punk who has never done this before. Do everyone a favor and get a clue. There is a reason why nobody is doing this stuff anymore!

Game over. Go home and don't look back. Go off and learn ASP and Cold Fusion like a good little web programmer. You will have a marketable skill and will actually get things done.

ISAPI is Microsoft's approach to adding capabilities to web serving. There are only a few books that describe how to use ISAPI. This book is the best of them, because the author: 1) provides examples in both C and C++, and 2) compares ISAPI with CGI solutions. Unfortunately, ISAPI is a complicated subject, so more and shorter examples would help elucidate the reader.

But my review has never shown up in this space.

I want to have a look on this book before buy it

... in order to stand and be counted but I must say that the other reviewers pretty much said it all. There is little analysis of the thought of Aquinas in this book. What's worse is that the book isn't a well reasoned critique on Aquinas' thought but rather a short burst of ranting and ravings, often resorting to cheap personal attacks.
I'm sure we're all just a little bit dumber after reading this book.

I agree with all the previous reviews. I had just finished G.K. Chesterton's book on Aquinas. Chesterton is a marvelous writer, but being a devout Catholic, he assumed the reader would know Aquinas' philosophy. I picked up this book to learn more. I didn't. Strathern constantly sacrificed his point for the sake of cruel witticisms. Other than a bit of history about Aquinas' life, I came away with the impression that Strathern: (a) considers Catholics beneath contempt: (b) believes the people of Medieval times have nothing to say to us (c) is so embittered toward Christianity that he can scarcely bear to credit it with any good. More than anything, this book irritated me because it never gives the basic points of Aquinas' philosophy. Even when granting Aquinas' intellect reluctant praise, Strathern doesn't elaborate on why Thomas was brilliant. I agree with the other reviewer who wondered if Strathern had even read Thomas Aquinas. If all the books in the series are this bad, I won't waste my time.

I disagree with the previous five raters for this item.

First of all, look at the goal of the book. It is meant to be a brief introduction, not a comprehensive survey. No one will be an Aquinas scholar after reading the book, but no one should expect to. It's a reasonable introduction to his life and times and I learned a few things from it. It's a good perspective.

Second of all, the author may not have much good to say about Catholicism, but very few authors and academicians these days have much good to say about any Western religion.

Third, his writing style is a bit snide at times, but the alternative is a dry style that few people will read.

My major criticism is that the book is a bit short on his actual philosophy and a bit too long on the times he lived in. I do think his Timeline on Philosophy and the life of Aquinas was very useful, and his brief description of the philosopher's last days was downright charming.

Perhaps a better brief source on Aquinas would be the section in Will and Ariel Durant's series on the Story of Civilization.

By way of background, I have an M.A. in Philosophy and a doctorate in antother field.

I needs your help and note in adhesion molecules in Rheumatoid arthritis, OA and reactive arthritis