Conferences Books

I've used this book to train tutors, and it is one of the better books out there for the purpose. Not only is it easy to read and understand (in other words, it is accessible even to undergraduate tutors), but it also supplies a wealth of research, theory, and history of the best tutoring writing practices. My favorite chapter is near the end of the book where the authors provide short sections highlighting tutorial advice from masters like Muriel Harris, Peter Elbow, Donald Murray, and Nancy Atwell.

What the previous reviewer may not have understood is that the authors were merely reporting the impact of feminist theory and research on the field of tutoring writing. Any intense reading of composition academic journals would show that, yes, feminist theory has had an incredible impact on the evolving understanding of best practices in the teaching of writing, in general, and in tutoring writing, specifically. As in everything, a field of study develops from a conversation. The feminist contribution to that conversation in composition studies has been a rich one. The authors would have been remiss to leave it out of their overview of tutoring writing.

Great book overall. I highly recommend it.

Tutoring Writing by Donald A. McAndrew & Thomas Reigstad is a composite of methods in tutoring students in writing.

At first, the book was good. It summarized my college education (my degree is in English and Education). It's always good to read about methods.

As I read on, it read like a college term paper from a B plus student. It was concise, reviewed well, but... (the "but" kept showing up in my mind when I read it).

Finally, the marker of bad writing came to pass. "Feminism."

The scar of leftist agenda took over the book with an entire cry of how women (sepcifically "feminism") teaches us the best way to tutor teaching.

Feminism is a political dance and has nothing to do with good writing. It would be the same as saying "Conservatives teach good writing methods because, by nature, they..." which would be just as false.

Too bad the education world can't teach reality and just rely on leftist agenda to produce. It could have been a good book.

This was the first Philip Kerr novel I've read and based on other reviews, if it does not live up to the Berlin Noir series, I am excited to read them. I thought Hitler's Peace was a more than a decent WW II novel with very effective use of events both "here" and "there". The alternate version of who was looking for what amongst the Big Three was plausable as well, in my opinion. Lastly, I am always impressed when an author can pull off first and third person naratives in the same book; I thought it was very effective.

Once upon a time, D.B. Wyndham Lewis and Charles Lee compiled "The Stuffed Owl: An Anthology of Bad Verse." While bad verse is everywhere so abundant that a collection of it may seem de trop, this is not just any bad verse. It is bad verse by good poets, and that of course is the point. "Hitler's Peace" is a bad book by an excellent writer; so bad that it's difficult to believe Philip Kerr wrote it. The style, the subtleties, and the context that informs "The One from the Other" and his superlative Bernie Gunther books is nowhere in evidence. In fact, he makes so many contextual mistakes that one suspects a malevolent ghost writer. His protagonist is fictional, so Kerr was free to draw him however he chose. But the historical characters upon whom the plot depends are real people; men about whom far too much is known to excuse the major mistakes in evidence here. Philip Kerr is an extraordinary writer. He's far too good for something like this. Read his good ones. Pretend this one never crossed your path.

Hitler's Peace is not one of Kerr's Bernie Gunther series, but a free-standing novel set in World War II, specifically around the time of the Big Three conference in Teheran, in occupied Iran, in 1943. Kerr uses a wide cast of real characters as well as a few fictional characters to tell a what-if story built around Schellenberg's and Himmler's peace feelers to the Allies of around that time.

Kerr's strength in all his books is character development as well as a stickler's attention to historical and atmospherical detail, and this book is no exception. He fleshes out the characters of his protagonist and (partially) first person narrator Willard Mayer, philosopher with an ambiguous past attached to FDR's retinue; Schellenberg, Himmler and Canaris; FDR, Churchill, Stalin and Hitler; as well as countless minor real or fictional characters along the way, and the trip takes us from Washington to London to the trip across the Atlantic on the Iowa with FDR, spending time in Tunis, Cairo, and of course Teheran. One can quibble with some of the characterizations of one or the other person, but on the whole I think Kerr gets all of this right. It is, after all, fiction.

Kerr's plot is based on the various motivations of all the key players, and they are, shall we say, many and multifarious. Murders follow Willard Mayer from Washington across the Atlantic, until the final climactic conference; Kerr weaves a complicated mess of a tale. If I have a problem with the book, it's that the ending is more than a little of a copout.

But on the whole, Hitler's Peace is not meant to be literature, and remains a very entertaining page-turner of a World War II novel. Kerr's powers as a writer lift it well above the average for that type of work.

I was hooked almost immediately and planned to give it 5 stars. The absurd plot shift near the end, however, led me to shave off 2 stars. Still, it was an exciting, well written novel, and I look forward to reading "Berlin Noir."

Hitler's Peace by Philip Kerr ***

Interesting enough to keep you reading, but the problem lies in motivating yourself to actually pick up the book and get going. This wanna-be espionage story is not worthy of Kerrs name. Where his previous work, such as the Berlin trilogy was exciting and well detailed that all seems lost here.

The premise of the book is interesting enough, in fact it's more than that and is actually one of the more original ideas in WWII fiction genre. As Hitler realizes he has no shot at winning the war he is cunning enough to formulate a plot to turn the allies against each other which would in turn take heat of him and open up holes the the fuhrer. Sounds fascinating, huh? not quite.

The plot at times becomes lost and loses focus more than a few times. The idea not being that far fetched that it could have really happened. Thought the authors slight exaggerations some of the real life characters' real relations with each other make the whole thing seem highly implausible.

Kerrs writing at times seems childish and not thought out. The lack of detail leaves the reader scratching their head in wonder rather than amazement as with his earlier work. Though as said before the story is interesting enough to keep the reader interested even though the book never really delivers.

Tell the truth, an interesting comment / policy coming from a political spin master. I had no perceptions about this book when picking it, as I had not heard anything about it. In my experience that usually means the book is rather run of the mill and dull. Well it turned out that this book is absolutely nothing like that. I really enjoyed the book. It was well written, snappy and interesting. He walks the reader through his time in the media relation's portion of the White House during the campaign finance issues and right before Monica. He does a great job of explaining what his job entailed and making it very interesting.

One thing that came to me as an extra was the details of the press and the way they work up a story. It makes you look at the new in a different light. The author detailed some of the phases to watch out for when reading a paper, which will make me trust political reporting even less. The points he raises has been one that every arm chair political junky has been yelling at the TV for years. Just tell the truth, it is always going to make it easier in the long run and eliminates the never-ending story about one little bit after another. The book is also rather positive. It is not a kiss and tell with nice bits of gossip. Overall I really enjoyed the book and would recommend it to anyone interested in the way the Clinton White House dealt with the media.

Lanny Davis takes you inside the spinmeisters den at the White House and tells how the news is made through leaking to the press and how the professionals blunt negative reporting about the President. Overall a quick read, but according to Lanny nothing President Clinton or Al Bore did is incorrect or wrong. Nothing at all; it is all part of the vast right wing conspiracy. I thought the lack of critical analysis shot the wheels off as a commentary, but as a how-to manual on spinning the message this a must have.

Ever wonder how Clinton gets away with his chronic criminal behavior? How does he control the television media so it won't report the truth about him? This book will tell you. It has a spin, as you can tell by the title, but it still reveals the basics of media control. It does not, however, mention all the liberal reporters who spoke up after being blackmailed by Clinton. Nor does it mention the financial benefits Clinton gave to the three main stations (deregulation) or the promises of power in the new global government.

Some of these reviewers apparently have not read the book. They seem to have filed reviews for the sole purpose of ranting about Bill and Hillary Clinton. In Mr. Davis's account of his meeting with the President regarding Miss Lewinsky, his advise was to tell it all and tell it now whatever the truth is.

The bulk of his book is dedicated to the campaign finance "scandals" where he had to continually contend with other White House counsels who took the tack of not exposing their client to undue risk, often with disastrous results, such as with the White House coffees.

If you are interested in the dynamics between the White House and the press, this is the book for you.

I gave Lanny two stars because his actions cannot be praised only given our pity. On the other hand, Lanny was forthright in explaining his mistakes of telling and giving out misinformation a tender way of saying lying. An admission of this kind of failure deserves neither recognition or commendation. But I am glad he explained it. The book only reinforced my belief that this is a President with fatal flaws of character and should have never been elected. He accomplished nothing but country club travel, cheating at golf and humiliating his wife, daughter and nation. The book shows that politics makes good people do bad things to cover failure, meanness and embarrassment. I expected more of Lanny and the entire Democratic party by having them call for Clifton's resignation when he was found lying under oath. They did not act except by saying he did not lie, well, here is the result, it will be sometime when I trust and vote for another Democrat. And here is the worse aspect from their actions and this book, I am and always will be a Democrat but no longer in the primaries. I will let them keep picking candidates with failures of nerves and then vote the other side in all general elections. It is like Moses and the Israelites, no one who worships falsehoods can enter the Promise land until that generation is dead and gone. All people who engineered this cover up of deceit to remain in power must leave before gentlemen like me return. I speak for many who read this book. This is the legacy they are leaving and none to proud. All of them need to go away for a long time, just like the book.

I was excited when I received this book, but my interest soon turned into anger. What a rip off. There's little information about the grants and awards, and worse yet, I found....by doing some research which the author certainly didn't do....that some of the awards no longer exist! Pity the poor writer who uses this book as a reference. Terrible.

This book opens up some opportunities for people like myself. That is, someone who loves writing but has no experience with it. Without this book I would have no idea that there are actually things I can do with my work. Besides file it and read it to friends and family. But I do feel the book lacks some important content when dealing with organizations. And maybe some more ideas on presentation and subject are needed.

I was excited when I ordered "Money for Writers" in mid-1997. I've been freelancing full time for 17 years and I thought I might be able to land a grant or project that would let me concentrate on a "from the heart" project. No such luck -- the info in "Money for Writers" is profoundly disappointing. Billot doesn't provide enough info about the listed grants and fellowshops for serious writers to be able to make smart decisions about whether it's worthwhile to apply. Introductory chapters provide no helpful advice on successfully applying. Worst of all, when I returned the book, Billot ignored my request for my money back...it wasn't until several writers from the American Society of Journalists and Authors started clamoring together for refunds that any were forthcoming. Overall, a great idea torpedoed by its execution.

As a professional journalist, let me describe this book as economically as I can. It sucks. I was fooled by the title. It is a book that the author could have had compiled by an intern. I would be surprised if she spent more than 45 minutes of her own time on it. It is nothing more than a list of available grants, with names and addresses of the sponsoring organizations. No information about the award. What good is a book like this without giving a few paragraphs about the criteria for each award, or a few examples of recent winners. Arghhh! It pains me to think of the editing and severe scrutiny I have endured by editors, while this piece of crud made it onto the shelves. Who does the author know?

I found "Money for Writers" extremely helpful. It lists hundreds of grants and awards with small snippets as to what they fund -- i.e poetry, fiction, drama, etc. The purpose of Ms. Billot's book is to provide writers with a consise listing to contact for more information, it is NOT a listing of federal grants, or what is known online as "free money". If you are looking for specific details ... merely type "grant money" in your browser search box.

As to some of her entries no longer existing, Money for Writers' copyright is 1996, and 1997... 6 and 7 years ago. Take a look thru WRITER'S MARKET 2003, or POETRY MARKET 2003. Find a trade journal and join or write to them.... do a search for an award, etc you're interested in -- find their dotcom; whatever you can think of. But Money for Writers is not a detailed guide.

That would be the federal government, or private funding sources. Try Grant Seeker Pro's site. Or the Guru of Grants, Mathew Lesko. [I must warn you however, that Lesko's book is 800 pages long]

Anyway, I have been writing FOR YEARS, and found "Money for Writers" very helpful. Just take what you find in it's pages as a "short list" that you need to investigate and follow up on.

Hang in there, and good luck, I know what a writer's life is like.

The Mercy Center Guidelines reflect the highest standard of care in the chiropractic profession.

This is merely a consensus of a limited number of people, many of whom do not practice and others with apparent private agendas. One of the supposed contributors was deceased long before it was even published. Makes me wonder how they even published it.... Pretty much a waste of time and paper.

This small group of 'experts' on chiropractic completely misrepresented the facts involved. They set out with an obvious purpose and this book is their attempt at a professiopnal takeover. A new guidelines book has recently been published and has been approved by the National Guideline Clearinghouse (a branch of US gov't). If this subject interests you, get the other one and save yourself some money.

A group of well respected Chiropractors got together to determine which techniques and proceedures are accepted and which are not. It is gives general guildelines for treatment protocols. Read by most Chiropractors, used (or abused) by many insurance companies. Not very interesting for those not in the field. I wish the medical specialties would have the same.

I love this book and I'm not sure exactly why. The previous three reviewers, two of whom only gave two stars, all make good points, but I appreciate most, I suppose, the story. We can find the final declarations of reparations, the selection of Poland's western border, and the minutia of contracts all enumerated elsewhere, but the story here is fascinating.

This is not your traditional academic history treatise, certainly, and the subject material likely does not lend itself to a very broad audience, and although the author does editorialize at times, as others have stated, this book is definitely worth a read simply because of the story. Several interests all intersect here: military history, Germany, the personal interactions between powerful heads of state, intrigue, and for me, my intimate familiarity with the locale of the Potsdam Conference--and the fact that this region, the buildings and streets are now all available for anyone to visit firsthand, now that the Wall no longer stands--all especially enhance the narrative.

It's not always what we get, but how we got there. The facts are fine; the account, though, alluring.

Meeting at Potsdam is a well written and engaging account of...you guessed it, the meeting of the big three at Potsdam, Germany in July 1945. There is good attention paid here to the sort of detail that brings history to life. Churchill being stalked briefly by a German woman as he tours the ruins of Berlin, for example. The writing style is almost novelistic - it often seems as though you are reading a work of fiction. This style makes for an enjoyable book but also underlines a certain willingness to play with the facts in order to advance the case being made.

Mee takes the view that no matter what country or system politicians are from, they invariably turn out to be rats. They're all a bunch of cynical, devious individuals who have no hesitation sacrificing whatever suits them, including human life, to achieve their objectives and make themselves look good. It's easy to agree with his viewpoint, but following the distortions used to support it gets real old real fast.

Churchill is portrayed as a bumbling, though conniving old bag of imperial ambition - and a bad painter to boot. It's humorous up to a point, until you stop to consider the man's accomplishments, not least of which was his foresight about the clash of civilizations that later became known as the Cold War (and he's widely known as a good painter). In a major statement of the obvious, Stalin is called a monster; and then Harry Truman is portrayed as being not a whole lot better. Haven't you heard? The use of the atomic bomb against Japan was nothing but cold blooded murder. Truman knew Japan was beaten and the war could have easily been ended by issuing a promise to the Japanese that their sacred emperor would be left intact. That's all it would have taken. The battle of Okinawa that ended only a few weeks before with it's massive U.S. casualties and fanatical Japanese resistance meant nothing to Truman. Japanese plans to arm civilians and fight to the finish were a minor detail. After all, the sophisticated types back then were clairvoyant and just knew the planned invasion was a feint and would never happen. And the attack on Pearl Harbor? Ancient history by 1945. The fact that most Americans wanted the emperor removed from power? Truman should have known better than the great unwashed. The policy of unconditional surrender? Another instance of political posturing. Truman and Roosevelt before him had elections to win and it made a good slogan. Yeah, sure.

Mee deserves credit for recognizing that the Japanese militarists who controlled the country blocked any real effort to negotiate a peace. This is a lot more than most who advance that line will admit. In their view, the Japanese were apparently being controlled by Truman, who had the ability to dictate when and how peace would come about. But then again, pointing out the the Japanese could have opened negotiations earlier fits in with the books' overriding theme about politicians. Yes, even the Japanese ones were evil. Gosh, who would have thought.

The majority of what was discussed at Potsdam concerned the situation in Europe. The occupation of Germany, borderlines, reparations and spheres of influence were the most important issues and the book accordingly focuses on these topics more than others. The most interesting thing about the treatment of these topics is that the Soviet point of view is well represented and easy to understand. The Soviets had borne the brunt of the fighting and destruction during the war and wanted some help in rebuilding. They also hoped to create a buffer zone of friendly states to help prevent another invasion. Stalin feared that democracy might bring anti-Soviet governments to power. He thought it possible that western insistence on things like free elections and other basic human rights were nothing but a bargaining position. Since Franco's Spain had been an ally of Hitler's, Stalin thought the West should remove the right wing dictator. If their commitment to democracy was real, they would seek to establish a more democratic regime in this country that was clearly a part of the western sphere. Truman's response was noncommittal, which left Stalin with the impression that democracy need not be established in places like Poland or Hungary. So there you have it - democracy, dictatorship, what's the difference? They're just two competing political systems.

It almost comes as a surprise when the cold war revisionists are slammed. So it wasn't all America's fault. That's good to know. I would have guessed otherwise from much of what's in this book. Perhaps it's nit picking but there was no mention anywhere of the decision reached at Potsdam to divide Korea along the 38th parallel. I can't help but wonder if this is because no one has found a way to pin responsibility for the communist attack there on the U.S.

It could be that Meeting at Potsdam deserves a third star. After all, there aren't many books on this specific subject and it's not a bad read. If you're interested enough in this topic to read a whole book about it (and don't ask me what my problem is that I am), then I suppose it's worth a look. Still the phony objectivity on display here gets a little too grating for me to really like the thing, so two stars it will remain.

I think Dustin has hit the nail on the head about this book. Mee is a bit glib, and flings out ideas that do not resonate well with WW2 scholars. Look at Mee's credentials: an editor of Horizon Mag and the author of a book about the confrontation between Pope Leo X and Martin Luther. (A substantive topic, but not relating to WW2.) Having said that, this book contains some great tales and gives a very interesting set of insights about the three big boys who met at Potsdam. It's a book for history buffs only, and, if you are in that category, it's a smooth read.

We all know that history is a subjective thing, and Mee acknowledges that too, but saying so shouldn't allow an author to treat his subject like he's chatting over latte and biscotti and feeling very arch. For some reason, Mee is a big fan (apparently) of what he calls "non-ideological" diplomacy (as if such a thing existed); he disparages the politicians and has nice things to say about the state department/foreign ministry types who were there for the "horse trading" -- a phrase Mee uses too often. Further, he has a clear anti-Churchill bias: he calls Churchill's uniforms "costumes" and captions a picture by claiming Churchill is "scowling" at Stalin, when it is clear he is not. Small examples, true, but a thousand cuts kill, too. Truman is always "business-like" and "precise"; Stalin has his own leitmotif. Mee credits Stalin with being the best negotiator, but Stalin's "negotiating" only went as far as the Red Army. Mee also adds emphasis in the quotes to create the sense he is trying to build, not merely to draw attention to something relevant. Basically, he's putting words in mouths. The tone of the whole thing is just bitchy and snippy. It does have lots of actual information -- and Mee's thesis, that the leaders didn't want peace, but tension, is interesting -- but I would hesitate to recommend it except to those really, really interested in Potsdam.

While not intended for general readership, those interested in learning how FDR dealt with the press firsthand must read this book (actually, this series of books). In these volumes are transcriptions of every press conference conducted during his 13 years in office. From them you can learn how a master politician managed the news and those who reported it. Compared to FDR, only Kennedy and Reagan came close in terms of their ability to manage the 4th estate. And it's fun to read if you're a political junkie like me. Highly recommended.

the book is a fake i did not like it it sucked and was very boring it did not tell the right facts and was very boring.

Wish I had seen this book when our daughter was born. This covers every angle of Down Syndrome and has entries at every level from the anecdote to the academic paper. A wealth of bibliographic info for more research. What I liked most was the overwhelmingly positive tone of all the information.

... this is a great book that Ihighly recommend.

I haven't read the book yet, but please tell the editor that DS is *NOT* a disease! It is a disorder. Please correct this mistake in her paragraph! Thank you.

Because of the fact that the ordering of this book was NOT in my orderlist, I was not able to sent in my remark, that I still haven't received this book!!
- Can you tell me why it is not in my orderlist?
- Can you tell me what will be done about this?

Dianne Sommers

This book deals with the oldest copy of the Laozi (Dao De Jing) found to date (300 BCE). 33 scholars attended a conference to discuss this "new" text from around the world - most of them from China. The book deals with the details of the tomb it was found in, the methods of transcription and analysis used, examination of the text and all the various variations from other versions, the other "Confucian" texts found with it, a discussion of the Tai Yi Sheng Shui - a text attached to the Laozi - the earliest essay on the orgins of the universe, etc.

I found this book very interesting and informative, but would only recommend it to those who are as fanatical as I am! I would recommend readers to buy Robert Henrick's "Lao Tzu's Tao Te Ching: A Translation of the Startling New Documents Found at Guodian", who attended the conference and makes use of the opinions of the other scholars in his translation of the text. If U like that book and want to know more about the "Guodian Laozi", then buy this book - I wasn't disappointed.

enjoy!
~ BAO PU

This book is by far the best guide to selling training. Whether it's face to face selling, direct mail, writing a newsletter, telemarketing, planning a showcase, or another approach, the book is full of data on what works, and detailed suggestions for maximizing results.

I bought this book 10 years ago, and have been using it ever since. Whenever my consulting company considers a new marketing or sales effort, I take it down from the shelf and reread key chapters. Invariably, it has led me to adjust and improve my plans. My copy is dog eared and the binding has split, and I still learn something new each time I pick it up.

Since the book has not been revised since 1994, some of the specifics are outdated. But the basic principles, and 95% of the book, are as true today as ever. Some day, I hope someone collects enough data to update the other 5%. Until then, if you want to sell training, buy this book.

This book was published in 1994. The training industry has changed so significanly that the information in this book is of little use to anyone in the industry today. It certainly is not worth the price of $69.