John M. Jackson Books

I highly recommend this book. It was so well written and fun to read I read it in one sitting. Iamblichus writes like your right there with Pythagoras following him in his travels and hearing his teachings in person. This book is almost written similarly to "Footprints of Gautama the Buddha" in that you feel your there with him. I would recommend anyone interested in a fun, informing, and great read to buy this book.

Before this English translation of Iamblichus' only surviving defense of theurgy, scholars and those few others, curious about such matters had only Taylors' version to refer to. (While I am aware of A. Wilders' translation it suffers from far too many errors to be of much real value). Now Clarke, Dillon, and Hershbell have gifted us with what is sure to be the standard for years to come. That is not to say that Thomas Taylor was not a super-Damion among men. His translation no doubt will remain for years. This due to the fact that Taylor truly understood Theurgy as few other scholars.
So why the need for a new critical translation? Besides the fact that more extant manuscripts were examined than ever before in its preparation, this is a near transparent reading of Iamblichus' intent with clarity and fidelity. Unlike Proclus and many other Platonic fathers, Iamblichus according to Eunapius did not possessed a silver tongue. His writing is at times both tortured and unconventional. Somehow our current team has managed to negotiate many of the traditional Iamblichean hurdles.
The De Mysteriis is a brief examination of noetic or abiding principles of the soul together with proceeding and returning principles. Add to this that based upon the the focused questions from Porphyry, Iamblichus takes on some of the more difficult questions left unanswered by Plotinus. Questions such as the descent of the soul; whether or not the charioteer or One of soul remains undescended. In adddition Iamblichus deals with material sacrifice and its relation to the unmovable Gods, appearances of sound and light and their relation to the quale of beingness, epopteia and the art of Telestai. All these thorny questions and still more Iamblichus tackles in De Mysteriis.
An absolute must for all Scholarch-mystae!

Very well written, important review of an uninvestigated time in American history.

I purchased this book as a gift for my husband. We both got interested in the history of Korea through watching a series on our local TV channel. My husband is engulfed in this book. Says it is written in way that really keeps your attention. I plan on researching other books by Duncan.

This is an awesome movie. Funny a lot of the time yet gripping to see all the things Larry Flint went through . I was purley fascinated. I am now reading his autobigography, which is also good.

Great movie. I laughed, and cried, and laughed again at this incredibly wild film. Boogie Nights can't hold a candle to this one. Look for a guest appearance by THE Larry Flynt.

nominated for an Academy Award. Courtney was also terrific and also should have been nominated. They both played off each other well and pulled off a piece of history regarding "free" speech. which we know there really isn't any "free" speech in this country. Enjoy!

I love this movie, and I recommend this movie to anyone that does not like Larry Flynt-it has the potential to change your opinion. This movie was tongue in cheek, and it was tragic. This wonderfully directed and acted movie will show people that Larry Flynt may not be the most moral person (in some people's minds), but it shows that he has fought for every American's rights.
Courtney Love blew me away as Larry Flynt's late wife. Every movie I've seen with her, she proves that she has a talent, and this movie let her shine with her acting ability.

I didn't know too much about the man that was Larry Flynt before the other night. I new he was the man behind 'Hustler' but that was about it. Watching this surprisingly tastfully done biopic on the man opened my eyes to what he stood for. Pulling himself out of nothing, Larry Flynt (Woody Harrelson) stood up for the rights of every American when he fought for the publication of his magazine. Starting out the owner of an exotic dance club but looking for more he started a newsletter advertising his 'girls', but after his little side project took off running it was apparent where his big break was going to fall. The film follows Flynt throughout his life, from his marriage to dancer Althea (Courtney Love) who is just as excited about his magazine as he is, to his arrest's and constant battles with the court over the right to publish 'smut' as they called it.

His legal battles are really where the meat of this film lies for is really shows the hypocrisy of the legal system. They were forcing opinions on citizens instead of inforcing law. There was no law against the publication of porn, but it went against what many people belived to be good morals. As Flynt so noted, he was guilty of nothing but bad taste.

As the film progresses we see the aftermath of a shooting gone wrong, a man obviously upset over the magazine shot Larry outside of the courthouse paralizing him from the waist down. This has to of course be a terrible blow to a man obsessed with sex. Just before the shooting Larry was starting to turn over a new leaf after being converted the Christianity. He was trying to turn his magazine around (even though he ended up making it worse) but after the shooting he swore off god altogether and became athiest. Through the course of the next three years he and his wife became addicted to pain killers and his wife ended up suffering the fatal price when she was diagnosed with AIDS. The film shows beautifully, as well as heartbreakingly, Larry's devotion to his ailing wife and there illicit love affair that was in all sense of the word genuine.

The film helps show the triumph of the everyman as he battles for the freedoms we all enjoy and is relentless in doing so. He's not doing this for the money or the fame but to prove that we all want the same thing. It doesn't matter whether we agree with what this man did or what he promoted, for theres not one of us who doesn't enjoy the freedom we have in this country, and all Larry Flynt wanted was the right to enjoy that freedom as well. What this film proved, and better yet what Larry's life proved, is that once you start taking away the freedoms of one person based on our own viewpoints we start to limit ourselves and everyone around us. If we started punishing those who didn't think like us the world would be a much colder place.

Now what needs to be mentioned, and what makes a film like this so great, is the brilliant acting on the part of the entire cast, from Harrelson's brilliant take on Larry Flynt to Edward Norton's turn as his cautious lawyer. I wholeheartedly agree that Woody should have won the Oscar for this, for there is no one else that could have pulled this off the way he did. Courtney Love is another cast memeber who deserves heeps of praise for her scene stealing performance as Larry's bisexual, drug addict wife. Her performance blew me away with her commiment and dedication to her role. She was the def. of commanding and stole every scene out from under Woody's feet. I believe Courtney to be a huge star, and if she would only harness that drive she showed in this film then she could be much further then she is now. As a whole, in everyway, this is a great film that is about so much more than 'porn' but about growth and the fight for the American dream!

This is a very good paperback book. It contains all details explaining the questions in the back of each chapter in the textbook Forensic Chemistry.

This book is exactly what I was looking for as far as a forensic chemistry book. It came in great condition and relatively quickly.

Willem Dafoe at the time of this release was not a big star. The location helped make the movie good. Set in and around White Sands New Mexico. Directed by Roger Donaldson whose other credits included Dante's Peak,The Getaway(1994 version),and No Way Out. This is a good action and suspense movie. Samuel L. Jackson gives an excellent performence as a misguided FBI agent. This is a good addition to your DVD collection.

I bought this movie because I really like William DaFoe and Sam Jackson and they both deliver in this movie. Micky Rourke plays a slick role with a surprising twist. Take all three of these guys and independently they produce a great movie. But, put DaFoe, Jackson and Rourke together, and you have a killer movie!

We have a lawman who for no explained reason starts to investigate the cause of death of a man with 500,000 on him and it all goes down hill from there. There is no rhyme or reason to the story. I gave it two stars because the landscape is great.

White Sands is Micky Rourke and Willem Defoe in classic style. I think this was the first movie I saw with both of them and I've been a fan ever since. The suspense keeps your attention from the beginning of the movie. Willem Defoe is a small town Sherriff's deputy in Colorado who finds a dead body with a briefcase filled with money. The adventure only starts there as he finds himself in New Mexico meeting an arm's dealer (Micky Rourke) and eventually winding up in White Sands, NM. Samual L Jackson is in this flick as well and as I said, all afore mentioned are in classic form. A great movie for mystery/adventure seeker.

I bought White Sands in the cheapy bin at my local DVD retailer. I never heard of the film but I decided to buy it because I like both Willem Dafoe and Mickey Rourke. Upon viewing the film, I was only glad I payed $5.50 for it. Though it is far from bad, it's not all that great either. William Dafoe is a small Texas town sherriff that goes undercover when he finds a man dead with a half a million dollars in a briefcase. Not a bad story but all I could think is "what is this guy doing!" throughout this film as he goes deep undercover. He must have been bored with his small town life. There's plenty of twists and turns in the plot throughout the film but after awile one won't care. The film itself is also far from exciting. Mickey Rourke gives a fine performance but Willem Dafoe is a little below par. I'm sorry but he failed to convince me of his role in this film. After viewing theis film, I could see why it has been forgotten over the years because it is just not that memorable. White Sands ends up being a good way to waste an afternoon and is worth a buy if you can find it cheap. You also get to see Samuel L. Jackon early in his carrier as he is credited as Sam Jackson.

Willem Dafoe at the time of this release was not a big star. The location helped make the movie good. Set in and around White Sands New Mexico. Directed by Roger Donaldson whose other credits included Dante's Peak,The Getaway(1994 version),and No Way Out. This is a good action and suspense movie. Samuel L. Jackson gives an excellent performence as a misguided FBI agent. This is a good addition to your DVD collection.

I bought this movie because I really like William DaFoe and Sam Jackson and they both deliver in this movie. Micky Rourke plays a slick role with a surprising twist. Take all three of these guys and independently they produce a great movie. But, put DaFoe, Jackson and Rourke together, and you have a killer movie!

We have a lawman who for no explained reason starts to investigate the cause of death of a man with 500,000 on him and it all goes down hill from there. There is no rhyme or reason to the story. I gave it two stars because the landscape is great.

White Sands is Micky Rourke and Willem Defoe in classic style. I think this was the first movie I saw with both of them and I've been a fan ever since. The suspense keeps your attention from the beginning of the movie. Willem Defoe is a small town Sherriff's deputy in Colorado who finds a dead body with a briefcase filled with money. The adventure only starts there as he finds himself in New Mexico meeting an arm's dealer (Micky Rourke) and eventually winding up in White Sands, NM. Samual L Jackson is in this flick as well and as I said, all afore mentioned are in classic form. A great movie for mystery/adventure seeker.

I bought White Sands in the cheapy bin at my local DVD retailer. I never heard of the film but I decided to buy it because I like both Willem Dafoe and Mickey Rourke. Upon viewing the film, I was only glad I payed $5.50 for it. Though it is far from bad, it's not all that great either. William Dafoe is a small Texas town sherriff that goes undercover when he finds a man dead with a half a million dollars in a briefcase. Not a bad story but all I could think is "what is this guy doing!" throughout this film as he goes deep undercover. He must have been bored with his small town life. There's plenty of twists and turns in the plot throughout the film but after awile one won't care. The film itself is also far from exciting. Mickey Rourke gives a fine performance but Willem Dafoe is a little below par. I'm sorry but he failed to convince me of his role in this film. After viewing theis film, I could see why it has been forgotten over the years because it is just not that memorable. White Sands ends up being a good way to waste an afternoon and is worth a buy if you can find it cheap. You also get to see Samuel L. Jackon early in his carrier as he is credited as Sam Jackson.

It's a good episode, but it shows SG's as vapid girls with unnecessarily difficult personalities.

I've downloaded two episodes of CSI:NY and both episodes are "blurry." They are viewable but when I compare them to an episode of Bones the video difference is blatant. Bones is HDTV quality while CSI:NY is NOT!

Still a great show though.

Why isn't Candis Cayne a bond girl???
Great show, good story.

Though CSI:NY is most least favorite of the three CSIs, they still manage to make a good one sometimes. This is one of those good ones.

Written by a man who was close to Jackson, but published over 75 years after the fact, this account may or may not be totally factual. Nevertheless, even if it contains a modicum of BS, it is still first-hand BS, and to me this is so much more interesting than accepting someone's perhaps biased "interpretation" of the same events well over a century later.

I read this book in 1979, and would rate it highly as a good read.
However, I was disappointed a few years ago to learn that the entire thing is a fabrication, a string of lies from beginning to end.
A lot of men lie about their military service. Apparently Douglas was one of the more flagrant exemplers.

Unfortunately, I can't back up what I'm saying. I have no source. I forget where I read it.

While re-reading a passage in Shelby Foote's narrative history, I came across the account of Stonewall sitting on the fence, eating the lemon. Douglas is, I believe, the main, if not the only source for the "Lemon Legend."
I wondered to myself, "Now where did I read that Douglas's memoir was an utter fabrication? I'll check the Amazon reviews; surely someone will have debunked this book."

So here I am. My only point is, don't believe me or Douglas.
Let the Reader Beware.

Can anyone shed some light on this?

"I Rode with Stonewall" is one of the finest personal narratives of the Civil War, America's most decisive and costly conflict. The author, Henry Kyd Douglas, began writing this memoir soon after the conclusion of the war, but put it aside for more than thirty years while he practiced law and raised a family. At his death, his book about the war had not been edited and it wasn't until a descendent discovered the transcript and found a publisher that it was finally released in 1940, on the even of another great martial struggle. I purchased my first copy on a visit to the Fredericksburg battlefield more than twenty years ago and after reading most of it on a flight back from Washington D.C. to California, left it on the plane and in the days before the Internet, it was hard to secure another. Fortunately, on another tour of Civil War battlefields and museums, I managed to bring a copy back for my library - it's that memorable a book. Henry Kyd Douglas was a native of Maryland and a dashing young officer who served on Stonewall Jackson's staff in the early stages of the Civil War. And, like many other Confederate officers and enlisted men, he was devoted to the stern, brilliant artilleryman. Douglas later had a field command and despite being wounded no less than six times, he survived four years of brutal war. Unfortunately, other young heroes of the Confederacy, friends of Douglas like John Pegram, Sandy Pendleton and John Pelham did not. Douglas was handsome, dashing, brave and outgoing and because of these qualities, he was popular with officers on both sides in the war and a favorite of the Southern belles. His account is peppered with fond encounters, but always chivalrous, he abbreviates the names of the women he flirted with. Although the book is full of death, of lives lost in the ill-fated cause of the Confederacy and the abominable institution of slavery, it also shows that there was an idealistic and romantic side to the war. Even in the service of a bad cause, the terrible conflict between North and South brought out the deeper qualities of the men that served. Jeffrey Morseburg

This book, first published in 1940 - long after Douglas' death - is based on Douglas' war-time journal and personal papers. Douglas began to assemble them into book form several times, but never had them published; his relatives did......What emerges are wonderful portraits of Douglas, Jackson (for whom Douglas was a staff officer) and many other well-known (and not so well-known) soldiers and civilians caught in the Civil War. Douglas is decidedly pro-Jackson, but Douglas also shows us the real Jackson: a man who could be cruel to the extreme and then gentle and kind a few moments later. The book is fill with humorous anecdotes, which make it a "fun read" - I could not put it down. Yet there is an underlying sadness in the book, as one watches Douglas' many friends being killed off, sees the homes of his family and civilian friends burned or otherwise destroyed. Douglas never explicitly states it, but the reader can feel the anguish that Douglas - and many others - experienced....... One thing Douglas did not do was go into great detail about each battle. He reasoned that later historians, with a better overall view of things, would do a much better job. What he does do is "put you there" - whether in battle, in camp, or on some small adventure. This is one fantastic book! Along with the memoirs of Gen. E.P. Alexander, these memoirs are about the best I have ever read. Simply a great book!