T. Greenwood Books

I have had this book some years ago, but unfortunately I haven't. I am trying to find it in Spain since 1993 without results.

This book reads like an extended high school term paper. Some of the biographies could qualify for an entry to the wikipedia- others barely merit an entry in a bibliography...for a high school term paper. The illustrations are inked by the same undistinctive hand- which is rather sad and occasionally pathetic. The absence of context- the absence of variety, the absence of flavor all make for a very dull and uniforming "encyclopedia" indeed. I shudder to think of the school papers that will be written using this book as source material.
Are the authors and editors that worked on this project so uninspired by this field?

In An Influential Fashion isn't for your casual home or art library collection, but will delight collections solid in fashion history and design. Over a hundred sixty fashion designers and retailers from many countries are profiled in entries that cover the personality's lasting influence on the industry. Commercial fashion, licensing agreements, and marketing are all explored in an exciting survey.

The subtitle of Patterson's book indicates his main theme: federalism in transition. The transition was from the old-style, traditional federalism that existed prior to the 1930s, to the new, "cooperative federalism" that came into being. The New Deal was enacted under the auspices of this cooperation between the federal and state governments. Patterson examines this relationship, how effective it was, and its results.

The implementation of the New Deal was, of course, a very contentious issue. The cooperative federalism that was supposed to be going on often failed to live up to its name. There were constant battles between federal agents and state politicians and administrators. The federal officials criticized the states for their poor administrative systems, while the state representatives complained that the federal government was not contributing enough money, and what money they did contribute was distributed improperly. Roosevelt wanted to leave the states alone as much as possible, allowing them to experiment in their own way whenever it was feasible. Patterson believes, however, that the system would have been better implemented, and the people better served, had the states been given a lesser role. Ultimately, Roosevelt realized that legislation at the national level was the best solution for the problems facing a modern nation.

No two people, according to Patterson, seem to agree on the New Deal's impact on the states. Those friendly to it described it as a blessing. Others argued that it was discriminatory, enriching some states at the expense of others. Conservatives saw it as an autocratic Leviathan, while liberals thought it too timid and conservative. Patterson seems to agree with the liberals. He criticizes some of the New Deal policies (e.g. the use of the formula for federal matching grants for state relief), but he also believes that the federal government did not do nearly all that it could.

Patterson does view cooperative federalism, and the impact it had on the states, positively. It brought about improvements in state government, particularly in the areas of administrative efficiency and the expansion of the merit system in public personnel administration. It also hastened the spread of social legislation (e.g. Social Security, unemployment relief, and labor reform), especially in those states that passed "little New Deals." The New Deal also increased political participation in many states by appealing to previously ignored groups, particularly the underprivileged-blacks, the unemployed, immigrants. Not incidentally, these groups tended to vote Democratic, thus reinforcing the call for more liberal social services.

Perhaps the most important, lasting effect of the New Deal (and cooperative federalism) on the states was the centralization of American life, and, by extension, the centralization of power. During the 1930s, authority passed from the states to the national government and has remained there ever since. The primary reason for this was the states simply lacked the ability to cope with the problems of urban, mid-twentieth century America. The federal government, therefore, was forced to step in and attempt to solve these problems at the national level. They assumed a much larger role in both the economic and social health of the states. Relations between the federal and state governments were never to be the same again.

The subtitle of Patterson's book indicates his main theme: federalism in transition. The transition was from the old-style, traditional federalism that existed prior to the 1930s, to the new, "cooperative federalism" that came into being. The New Deal was enacted under the auspices of this cooperation between the federal and state governments. Patterson examines this relationship, how effective it was, and its results.

The implementation of the New Deal was, of course, a very contentious issue. The cooperative federalism that was supposed to be going on often failed to live up to its name. There were constant battles between federal agents and state politicians and administrators. The federal officials criticized the states for their poor administrative systems, while the state representatives complained that the federal government was not contributing enough money, and what money they did contribute was distributed improperly. Roosevelt wanted to leave the states alone as much as possible, allowing them to experiment in their own way whenever it was feasible. Patterson believes, however, that the system would have been better implemented, and the people better served, had the states been given a lesser role. Ultimately, Roosevelt realized that legislation at the national level was the best solution for the problems facing a modern nation.

No two people, according to Patterson, seem to agree on the New Deal's impact on the states. Those friendly to it described it as a blessing. Others argued that it was discriminatory, enriching some states at the expense of others. Conservatives saw it as an autocratic Leviathan, while liberals thought it too timid and conservative. Patterson seems to agree with the liberals. He criticizes some of the New Deal policies (e.g. the use of the formula for federal matching grants for state relief), but he also believes that the federal government did not do nearly all that it could.

Patterson does view cooperative federalism, and the impact it had on the states, positively. It brought about improvements in state government, particularly in the areas of administrative efficiency and the expansion of the merit system in public personnel administration. It also hastened the spread of social legislation (e.g. Social Security, unemployment relief, and labor reform), especially in those states that passed "little New Deals." The New Deal also increased political participation in many states by appealing to previously ignored groups, particularly the underprivileged-blacks, the unemployed, immigrants. Not incidentally, these groups tended to vote Democratic, thus reinforcing the call for more liberal social services.

Perhaps the most important, lasting effect of the New Deal (and cooperative federalism) on the states was the centralization of American life, and, by extension, the centralization of power. During the 1930s, authority passed from the states to the national government and has remained there ever since. The primary reason for this was the states simply lacked the ability to cope with the problems of urban, mid-twentieth century America. The federal government, therefore, was forced to step in and attempt to solve these problems at the national level. They assumed a much larger role in both the economic and social health of the states. Relations between the federal and state governments were never to be the same again.

First of all, one thing should be made clear: This is an economic treatise, with everything that implies. It is dry, excruciatingly detailed, and very cerebral. That said, it's also an excellent insight into the philosophy of a man who, though his economic theories have long been considered invalid (and for good reason), was nonetheless at least an indirect influence on other discredited economists such as Marx and Keynes. This essay is imperative reading for anyone interested in the history of modern leftist economics.

As is expected, Malthus sees rent solely as a consequence and function of the scarcity of land relative to continuing population growth. Although he completely ignores the impact of technology in increasing productivity faster than population growth, he cannot be entirely blamed for this; after all, he died at the very beginning of the Industrial Revolution in England, before technology's impact was made completely clear.

However, this single excusable fault is by no means the only fault in this work. Besides technology, his mistaken conclusion that rent is a function of scarcity does not take into account the differing utility of land in different locations. Although mention of this fact is made in scattered places throughout the work, he does not factor it in to his final theory.

History and reason have debunked Malthusian economics time and time again; yet they continue to form the basis for modern leftist economic thought. For this reason alone is this essay worthwhile; it is essential to understanding where such irrational thought stems from.

The picture looks like its a hardback, but I got a paperback version. + its 23% on sale when it wasnt 2 weeks ago.

This well respected book is average... The program I am studying renders some of the chapters useless... The book is vaugue and akward in some of the explanations.

Don Greenwood's "Principles of Dynamics" is definitely NOT one for the faint at heart. Reason why many frustrated readers/students balk so much at it, bash it so furiously.

What most readers -- especially students -- fail to realize is that the book, despite being in its second edition, retains a lot of the flavor of the first edition, written in the mid-sixties, using a language and references that most present-day computer-minded students really aren't prepared to appreciate...

Actually, even -- especially -- from the conceptual standpoint, it is a very difficult book to read. Greenwood's long "text-only" expounding of many topics throughout the book are hard to follow. One really requires some getting used to it. As a matter of fact, the extensive derivations -- which naive students complain so fiercely about -- are indispensable, since, without those, one can have little hope of grasping the full content of the discussions.

Unfortunately, regardless of its problem-solving approach, the book doesn't quite tell the reader "the whole story"... For instance, it does not teach how to address nonlinear dissipative effects via the Lagrange-equation formalism.

Nevertheless, the author's assumption (see the Preface) that "students using this text will have the academic maturity of first-year graduate students or of well-prepared undergraduate seniors" is a little too optimistic, at best. The book is written at a level which requires a great deal of abstract reasoning, which is by no means a characteristic of today's students, who are far more into computer stuff than into reasoning. Some previous, solid academic experience is needed before one can start to benefit from the book in all earnest.

Having taken several of Prof. Greenwood's courses, I still remember RATHER VIVIDLY how sore my first experience with the book was!... By and large, however, today, I must say, through being so precise, so accurately and scholarly written, it is proving one very valuable asset.

The format and flow of the book is out-dated. Very hard to follow--because of the book...not the material.

People who criticize this book are people that have not yet learned dynamics. Though this book is not easy, neither is the subject matter. This book gives it straight. It covers certain subjects rarely found in other intermediate textbooks, such as the correct analysis of nonrelativistic systems with variable mass, and nonholonomic systems. The homework problems are perhaps the best intermediate-level collection ever assembled.

McHugh has done a disservice to the Baltic people and the United States diplomacy. He, in effect, besmirches the Stimson Doctrine which denied legitimacy to territorial acquisitions by power.
McHughas work typifies the leftist attitude emanating from our academia.

This book deserves a 3 and 1/2 star rating but since we can't do halfsies here I'll have to round down. The subject is more fascinating than this book reads. The author repeats himself way too many times and offers us a very limited perspective on the topic. Admittedtly that view, of the legitimacy of the representation of the Baltic peoples through their foreign legations, limits discussion, but the human dimension of an imprisoned people struggling for cultural survival deserves more than the dry legalese this book is written in.
Since there is so little on this subject, for aficionados of esoteric cold war conflicts, this is almost a must-read. Hopefully someone will take up the mantle and write a volume on the people of the Baltic diaspora that helped these isolated legations maintain the embers of repressed nationalism.

I used this book for an Educational Curriculum class and it was bad! It's a collection of documents from the 17th Century to the present that relate to the founding of our current public school educational system. Most of the documents are mercifully very short, but they were still hard to trudge through. It spans the periods from Colonial times (with a proposition from Ben Franklin) and continues through with a document from No Child Left Behind. Many of the essays and documents were too technical to be of use. I would definitely pick another book unless are forced to read it for a class!

When a non-native English speaker (myself) catches poorly worded sentences and many inconsistencies (from the use of commas to book titles), the translator, Mark Hooker, must be in serious trouble... And when a non-specialist in Dutch history (again, myself) finds inaccurate statements on recent history (e.g.; on holocaust, HIV disease... just to name a few) to justify "controversial" points of view, now it's the writer's turn to be in trouble...