Iowa Books

I had heard about this book for years, and finally got around to reading it recently. I was immediately turned off when Kahn was describing the influences in his household in New York--most notably Karl Marx. What is it with these people and their love for Marxism? Marxist governments have been responsible for over 100 million deaths worldwide, and yet to this day there are those who gush about how wonderful it is. These people are more than idealists, they are dangerous morons. Since I am not a political neophyte, the mention of Marx disgusted me and detracted from an otherwise good book. Isn't it ironic that if Kahn was living in his Utopian Marxist society, he wouldn't have made the fortune on this book that he made under capitalism?

How often do you read a book that you don't want to end? "The Boys of Summer" is one of them.

How often do you read a book at exactly the right time in your life, at a time when you are the most in tune with what the book is really about? For me, "The Boys of Summer" and I have met at just the right time.

It's not like I've been unaware of this book. Being a baseball fan, it's presence is just about as constant as it could ever be. As a lifelong New York Yankees fan, "The Boys of Summer" has always been "that old book about the Brooklyn Dodgers, who the heck cares?" Well, score that a two base error.

Waking up to the realities and disappointments of middle age is not all that much fun, nor is it frequently reckoned on it's own terms with necessary insight. It's usually a lot easier to go to sleep, get up, go to work, and watch those ballgames nearly every day. Now that's something to hold onto. The daily cacophony of two children is a great distraction, particularly if one is happy to be distracted.

But what of the inevitable changes wrought by the inexorable march of time? How long should one dwell on realizing that not only are you as old as the ballplayers you watch on TV, but that it was twenty-five years since you realized it? When in the world did our favorite players become coaches and hall of fame candidates, to be seen only at old timers days? Am I an old timer now? What...???

"The Boys of Summer" does us a great and timely favor. It's a powerful reminder. It's a gentle and insistent reflection of ourselves and what our lives have done to us, and where we find ourselves now. What have we lost along the way? What have we gained?

The game of baseball has long endured. It is both unchanging and ever changing. It can be a great distraction. Author Roger Kahn shows how it can teach as well.

Baseball is youth. Enthusiastic, ebullient, exciting, entrancing. Baseball will always retain it's youth. as that is it's nature. But not us. Youth passes and passes away, as it must. Life goes on. We must make do, and my oh my, isn't that a bit sad?

I wasn't around for the Golden Age of Baseball, the 1950's in New York with the Yankees, Dodgers and Giants fighting for supremacy in New York, although the team from the Bronx seemed to mostly come out on top. "The Boys of Summer" is wonderfully evocative of that era, and I really appreciate the human dimension that Kahn so ably weaves into the book. The old ballplayers really come alive in full color, and of course black and white. Who cares about the Brooklyn Dodgers? Well, bless my soul, now I do!

I look forward to when my two young children are old enough to watch baseball with me. I miss talking baseball with my now dead father.

Holy cow.

The reason I gave this book five stars is because I'm not allowed to give it six. This is simply the best baseball book I've ever read, and that's a fairly long list. I can't say enough positive things about this book.

It should be noted that I was a sports writer for 8 years and was early in my career when I read this book. I was enthralled by the first part of the book, which not only provided insight into two prototypical Brooklyn Dodgers seasons (great team, fell short of winning a championship), but it also took me into the fascinating world of journalism in the 1950s. It was exciting and eye-opening.

The second part of the book includes stories of Kahn visiting players from those teams many years later. You can't believe how interesting this is. The story of Billy Cox is touching. The story of Duke Snider offers great insight into the superstar outfielder. Roy Campanella's story is tragic. I've read three or four books by Kahn and all are good, but this is at an entirely different level. Someday I will read this book again when it's been long enough so that it can feel like I'm reading it for the first time.

Certainly, this book does not need another adoring review from a nostalgic fan who never saw the 1952 Brooklyn Dodgers play. It is universally regarded as a classic in its field. I am an avid baseball fan who devours baseball books yet, amazingly, I never read it. I always thought that this was little more than a fan's love letter to his favorite team, a perennial also-ran who couldn't get past the mighty Yankees. It is not. This book is so much more than that: it is a document of an era and a reflection upon that era and the ways that our society changed during the 15 or so subsequent years.

In ways perhaps unique in baseball literature, Roger Kahn manages to bring alive the feeling of the era. In a poignant poetic style, Kahn describes growing up as a Dodger fan, and the trials and tribulations of the 1952-53 Dodgers, as viewed from the perspective of a fan and a young news writer. Much of it is cast in a rosy glow; yet all the attendant ugliness of the era is neither ignored nor dismissed. It seems somewhat diminished however, as bad things typically happened to other people. The most touching moments are Kahn's personal moments, be they with his family or his team.

The second part of the book, in which years later, Kahn seeks out the members of his team, takes the narrative to a much higher plane. Not merely asking the aging idols to nostalgically remember "the good old days", he instead prods greater reflection from the men. As aging athletes, they all had to come to terms with their mortality in ways that the rest of us do not, and at an age that the rest of us do not. Most of us do not start really feeling our age until our children are grown, and our careers are winding down, and we are facing retirement. Athletes reach that point in life far earlier than the rest of us. While a man (or woman) working, say in the insurance industry, will continue to grow and become more capable throughout their working career, an athlete must change careers, if he is lucky, in his late 30's.

This particular group of athletes was remarkable for another reason. They played alongside Jackie Robinson, and thus desegregated major league baseball, and thereby, personified a great deal of hope for a great many men and women. Hope that not only could Black Americans achieve the same success as white Americans, but that they could get along with each other in the process. By being on the same team, the same side, men who otherwise might have been stunted by their own preconceptions and limitations and bigotries learned to admire and even like other men very different from them.

They also aged during a very tumultuous period in America's cultural development. The Vietnam War was at its peak while Kahn wrote this book, black-white relations in America were perhaps at their most volatile ever. Two players saw their sons fight in Vietnam and return changed - one mentally, the other physically and mentally. Another had a special needs child, at a time when there still were not many services for such children. Other players had come from backgrounds where blacks were not welcome, and returned to such places, no longer sharing that feeling. You get the sense in this book that they are no longer at one with their hometown because of their experiences playing alongside black men.

Plus, the Dodgers left Brooklyn. Their team no longer even existed. The LA Dodgers were not the Brooklyn Dodgers. Truly, an era had ended. Not an era of innocence, nor one that could really be considered "the good old days", although we are often wont to refer to the 1950's as both. But an era of growth, of optimism, of shared experiences for these athletes, and perhaps, vicariously, for their fans.

Never really a dedicated sports fan, but a voracious and eclectic reader familiar with its reputation, I approached THE BOYS OF SUMMER fully expecting an excellent book about the Brooklyn Dodgers, but unprepared for what I found.

Less a team history than a memoir of the best of times and the worst of times, author Roger Kahn, a former sportswriter for the late NEW YORK HERALD TRIBUNE, has accomplished the nearly impossible task of preserving an era in amber.

At the outset, we are introduced to Kahn's endearingly pretentious and unusual family: The father, Gordon, called "Gore-DON" by his wife, Olga, both teachers; the maternal grandfather, Dr. Rockow, a refugee of the Russian Revolution who obtained his Doctorate of Dentistry in Bern, Switzerland; the deceased grandmother, who, before her death at forty, had acheived a European M.D. Degree in an era when most women in her world were barely literate, much less successfully professional; the younger sister, Emily, stricken with polio; and Roger himself, a well-educated young man whose passion was Dodger baseball.

[A previous reviewer is critical of the "Marxism" of the book, but obviously, s/he did not read past page thirty; in painting us a living portrait of his family, Kahn tells us that they read, among many others, "Karl Marx and Freud," and refers affectionately to his Russian-Jewish immigrant grandfather as an "old Marxist toothpuller." Kahn's family was somewhat unusual for its time in being stolidly and successfully middle-class and firmly dedicated to Middle European humanist intellectualism in Depression-era, overwhelmingly blue-collar Jewish Brooklyn; but to call this book "Marxist" or equate it with DAS KAPITAL is to say that THE CAT IN THE HAT is equivalent to GRAY'S ANATOMY because it was written by a Dr. Seuss.]

Living within view of Ebbet's Field, baseball was central to Roger's summer universe. This centrality was reinforced by his erudite father, who, when not discussing Joyce and Flaubert at the dinner table, was playing endless games of catch with his son and regularly taking him to games. With no appreciation of sports, Olga, "who had pretentions toward atheism" pleaded with God to intervene: "Please let him read one book; just ONE book." God's choice for Roger was FUNDAMENTALS OF PITCHING, which he carried around with him for weeks.

Whether Olga appreciated it or not, Roger was developing a Love For The Game, and he became the HERALD TRIBUNE's point man at Ebbet's Field just as the Dodgers emerged from a decades-long obscurity to become not only one of the preeminent franchises in baseball history, but also an historic team.

The Brooklyn Dodgers had always been iconoclastic. The only Major League team representing only a portion of it's home city (granted, Brooklyn had been an independent city until 1898), the team members lived locally and were well-known in their various Brooklyn neighborhoods.

From 1921 to 1938, the Dodgers were barely competitive. A chronically bankrupt franchise locally beloved but belittled as "dem bums," the fog began to lift in the War Years. The Dodgers captured a pennant in 1941. From 1941 to 1945 they played hard, but wartime manpower needs kept the team from truly excelling. It was not until 1947 that the Dodgers blossomed.

And as they blossomed, they made history as well, being the first modern Major League team to sign a black player, Jackie Robinson. Despite being vilified by certain elements, Robinson was MVP and led them to stellar heights. And despite a plethora of personal opinions about Robinson, the team as a whole responded positively to Robinson's amazing energy, and played magnificently for the next decade. Though not every Dodger was dedicated to Civil Rights, only one, aptly named Dixie Walker, asked to be traded, and was. The rest eventually accepted Number 42 as a teammate, and either liked him or loathed him for himself.

Perennial Pennant winners, they nonetheless could never overcome the dominance of their crosstown American League rivals, the Yankees, even in 1953, when they statistically outplayed the famed Murderers' Row team of 1927. The Dodger lament was always "Wait 'Til Next Year." It was not until 1955 that they could proudly claim, "This IS Next Year!"

But by then, the team had aged, Robinson was gone, and Kahn, too, had moved on. The last trolleys ran in Brooklyn in October of 1956, and with no more trolleys to dodge, the Dodgers vanished from Brooklyn in 1957 and took up residence in Los Angeles. Kahn ends the first half of his book by recounting the death of his father, but it is only one ending among many in that time.

Part Two of THE BOYS OF SUMMER brings us The Boys of Summer" in their autumn. Written in 1971, the book provides a series of encapsulated snapshots of each of the former team members in their fifties, some fat, some thin, some embittered, some wistful, some successful and some lost in time. The Boys in their age largely returned to their roots, most of them to little towns in the South and Midwest where they ran lumberyards, coached Little League, and were Presidents of their local Rotaries. Each has a story to tell, and so much of what made the Dodgers a truly great team is revealed in these pages.

Jackie Robinson stands out. It is hard, sixty years later, to realize how daring owner Branch Rickey was to sign Robinson at that time, and how difficult Robinson's journey was. "Brown v. Board of Education" was still seven years in the future, Jim Crow was rampant, Dr. King's Montgomery Bus Boycott was a decade away, and still Robinson overcame all obstacles, mostly because of his iron determination off the field and his spectacular talent on the field, attributes which his teammates, and then his opponents, came to respect.

The team's sudden, unexpected departure from Brooklyn is still lamented, and then-owner Walter O'Malley is still hated for it: "If a Brooklynite with a gun has only two bullets and Hitler, Mussolini and O'Malley are his targets, who does he shoot? O'Malley---twice."

Although some reviewers accuse Kahn of revisionism in his treatment of O'Malley, a close reading of the last chapters reveals something different. While most Brooklynites' long-standing hatred of O'Malley is real, it is the hatred of the townsman for the corporation that closes the mill, throwing the factory town into crisis---personal, and yet remote.

The bitterness remains. The Los Angeles Dodgers are still often referred to as the Los Angeles Traitors. In this reviewer's family, Dodger defeats, particularly to the Mets at Shea or to the Yankees, are greeted with, "Take that! That's what you get for leaving!" And it's been fifty years since they've gone. Of course, the Dodgers were in Brooklyn for seventy years beforehand.

Kahn's hatred of O'Malley is more immediate and visceral than the average fan's. He so clearly utterly despises O'Malley, who comes across as a self-proclaimed Manhattanite, a rude, self-righteous, pompous, wealthy and greedy snob, a businessman with no interest in baseball, a seeker only of the greenback who cared not at all for fan affections, and who dismissed Brooklyn as the Provinces; in short a man who deserved, and perhaps even wanted, to be hated.

The Irish Catholic O'Malley proclaimed himself a "Tory." He fined staffers a dollar each time they mentioned Branch Rickey by name. Robinson was a showboater in his estimation, and it was New York's fault the Dodgers left---if Brooklyn had wanted the team Brooklyn should have met his demands for a new stadium and other concessions.

With no Love of The Game, O'Malley's decision to move the team was based, solely and selfishly, on his desire to line his own pockets (he was always notoriously cheap with fans, players, and staffers), and to create his own power dynasty far from the interference of the New York Elites, to whom he was an also-ran.

Many people have written that the Dodgers left because "Brooklyn was changing" as "white flight" drove the middle classes to the suburbs. This ignores the fact that many areas did not change demographically, and that the process was neither sudden nor total. It also discounts the fact that minorities are not immune to an appreciation of the National Pastime. It ignores the fact that the Dodger departure was not so much an effect as a cause of these changes. Local historians mark 1957 as the end of an era in Brooklyn history.

Lastly, although the Borough was changing, it was also remaining the same, as the home of newly-arrived immigrant minorities. Brooklyn could (and should) have remained the home of this beloved team. It was thriving and would have continued to thrive. As Kahn says: "In a perfect world, Brooklyn would have the Dodgers and the Mets would be in Los Angeles."

Would that it were.

This is wonderful tale. It constantly has you wondering what could be next. You soon discover that anything is possible.

My all-time favorite baseball book. A must read for anyone that loves the game (or loves a good story).

If you love baseball, fantasy, and especially the Chicago Cubs you can't help but love Kinsella's delightful tale. As another baseball season gets ready to start this book will get you into the right frame of mind. Similar in style to the wonderful "The Year It Finally Happened."

What's so mind-boggling is the drugs that Kinsella must have been smoking in order to come up with this one. Now read this description of the book:
An albino, like his dead father, is convinced that a 3000 inning game took place 80-some years ago between the Chicago Cubs and the Iowa baseball Confederacy All-stars. The albino is somehow able to go back in time and witness the game (as a matter of fact the local hicks use him as a good-luck charm and rub his head before stepping to the plate, allowing him to remain in the dugout) in all its glory. Then Teddy Roosevelt shows up and takesa few swings, telling the pitcher not to patronize him after throwing an easy pitch, and then making a cheap pun about the bat being a "big stick." Soon after that Leonardo DaVinci showed up in a balloon and watches a few innings. Shortly thereafter a giant flood occurs and some of the players spontaeneouly throw themselves in the waters. To fill the vacancies, a statue of an angel plays in the outfield.

There, I think I've covered all the bases, so to speak. Oh, I forgot the Native America named "Drifting Away" who is messing with the reality of this county and eventually plays in the game too.

Look, I don't like to be so completely negative, but the book was ludicrous. To make matters worse, it throws in a fairly gratuitous love interest who is the spitting image of the Albino protagonist's mother (kinda Fruedian) and more seemingly random things than could possibly be mentioned in this review. And bear in mind, reading these things, that I'm a baseball fan.
3/10

W.P. Kinsella is one of my all-time favorite writers, and this is one of his better novels. If you've seen the movie, "Field of Dreams," or read his book "Shoeless Joe," which was the basis for the movie, you know what to expect from Kinsella.

His stories of baseball and magic are written for readers with vivid imaginations. This is a story of a researcher looking for proof of an old league that nobody else can remember. He somehow ends up at a never-ending exhibition game between the 1908 Cubs and the all-stars from this Iowa league.

As usual with Kinsella, the book is about a lot more than baseball. If you're the type of reader who can accept a story that seems totally unbelievbale, and if you like baseball, you should try this one. If you like it, he's written quite a few other books and I haven't found a bad one yet.

This is a unique and very entertaining book for juveniles--especially young girls would like this. I like this because it is a story about a farm girl in Iowa--something that young girls don't get exposed to very often these days, and it's so nice to have a young female heroine whose noble goal is to grow a giant pumpkin rather than some superficial nonsense. Funny and real.

Joan Bauer, a Newberry Honor author for Hope Was Here, has another winner with Squashed. From the first sentence the reader is plunged into the tumultuous world of Ellie Morgan, and her giant pumpkin, Max. The fact that the giant pumpkin in her backyard takes up most of Ellie's time lends to the idea that she is not the average sixteen year old girl, but behind Max's 500 plus pound frame is a regular girl with all the challenges of high school. Ellie struggles with her weight, a father who doesn't support Max, and the death of her mother, not to mention Wes, the new kid at school who happens to love growing as much as Ellie.
Bauer's style allows for laughs, even when talking about serious issues, such as Ellie's most recent diet, which isn't going too well. Joan Bauer helps young adult readers to deal with their faults and through wisdom shared in Squashed, focus on the positives about themselves. Overall it's a very fun book, and one that I had trouble putting down. Squashed has 194 pages and is a relatively quick read, with a reading level of about twelve years old, though the interest level is higher, ranging from fourteen to all ages of adults.

This is one of the funniest and one of the best written teen stories I've read in a long time! As a high school English teacher, I cannot wait to implement this story into my class this fall--right in time for our annual Fall Festival! How perfect!

I loved this book with all the excitement in it like when Ellie was catching those pumpkin thieves. There was also romance like when Wes (Ellie's crush) kissed her and she kissed him back. This book had many types of emotions throughout it.
One of my favorite parts of the book were when Ellie embarrassed Sharell in front of Wes. Another was when Richard (Ellie's cousin) brought over Spider. In my mind Spider reminded me of a street dog. It said that he had dirty ruffled fur and he had no teeth so he gummed everything. The last was when Max stole the first place ribbon away from Big Daddy and his grower Cyril Pool.
I would recommend this book to someone who likes books with action like when Ellie caught the pumpkin thieves, suspense like when Cyril's pumpkin is weighed, and some romance like when Wes kisses Ellie. This book had to be one of the best I ever read and I know it will be the same for you

Ellie's whole life is pumpkin growing. On the small patch of land in the yard of her home where she lives with her widower father, Ellie tries to grow giants big enough to win the town's annual pumpkin growing contest. The fall festival is the biggest holiday of the year in town, and even though Ellie is still a teenager, she has been entering the adult growing division for years.

The problem is Cyril, a nasty and mean-spirited grower who also aims to grow the town's biggest pumpkin and has taken the fair's first-place title for many years. Ellie always seems to be second place to this despicable man, who enjoys rubbing his victories in her face. This year, though, Ellie is more determined than ever. She is confident that Max, the biggest pumpkin she's ever grown, will be a champion.

That is, she is confident until she sees Cyril's giant.

Ellie continues to nurture her pumpkin while trying to do well in school, convince her father that growing pumpkins is important, and attempting to gain the attention of the new boy at school, the president of his former school's agriculture club. It is a stressful life for Ellie, but will it all be worth it?

I liked how Ellie was able to relate everything going on in her life to growing. She used the analogy to explain everything to the reader, which showed just how important it was to her. The characters in this story were really good. I liked the way they interacted with each other and stood up for each other. I especially liked Richard and the way he supported Ellie.

However, Ellie took everything too seriously and overanalyzed everything. If she were a real person, I don't know if anyone would ever want to be around her. It also bothered me that Ellie was constantly obsessing over her weight and then overeating. Someone strong enough to do all of the work it took to grow those pumpkins should have been strong enough to go on a diet, if her weight was such an issue to her.

This is a very small book that has a lot of good content. It is only 96 pages long, but it packs a punch.

The focus of this book is clearly on one strengthening his/her relationship with God. It is a book that can be read multiple times while gaining more insight each time through. It would also be a great gift.

Centered around The Lord's Prayer, the author has done a pretty solid job of dissecting that model and showing how to incorporate those principles into one's prayer life. I really think that the author could have doubled or tripled the content and made it much better. It appears that his goal was to keep it concise and it is certainly that.

Although I think it could be better, I still think that it is very good. It is one of the better books on prayer that I have read. It is certainly far superior to the similarly sized 'The Prayer of Jabez'. There is no comparison in terms of spiritual content. Whereas the Jabez book is centered around a consumer's prayer life, this one is focused on real spiritual growth. I recommend it.

I wish this book hadn't been married to the Jabez fad, as that dooms it to fade away with the Jabez books, while Hanagraaf's book deserve to stick around for years and be re-printed.

But one question: the author makes much of the disciples' request "teach us NOW to pray" (as contrasted with the request of "teach us HOW to pray.") Um, what translation of Luke 11 (or else what text in any translation) has that NOW in there? I also looked at the Greek for both the textus receptus and the older manuscripts and don't find any hint of this. SO WHERE DID IT COME FROM? Please private message me if you can shed some light on this.

Illustrates and rewords the lord's (or "our father") prayer. I assume the title is a play on The Prayer of Jabez that certain religious communities I know were really into recently. Anyway, a beautiful little book with sweet illustrations to remind kids it is not an empty incatation they are reciting but a real request for help and thanksgiving.

Hank Hanegraaff has been given the wrong impretion. Many think this book is an attack on Bruce Wilkerson's THE PRAYER OF JABEZ but in reality, Hanegraaff praises Wilkerson for helping people learn to pray in his forward. While he is critical in some places of some points that Wilkerson made, he does so in love and not in a harsh tone.

This book is a short work on prayer. There are other books that offer more biblical exegesis on prayer passages (see THE SPIRIT HELPS US PRAY) yet this is more of a devotional work on prayer. Hanegraaff takes the Lord's prayer (Matthew 6:5-13) and devotes chapters to each part of the Lord's prayer. He uses personal illustrations to teach his reader his points.

The only drawback I found to this book is that it is hard for me to seperate Hanegraaff from his normal office, apologetics. His books on apologetics are much better than this book on prayer. While I don't know Hanegraaff personally, I don't think of him as a "man of prayer." Not that he doesn't pray I simply mean I see him defending our faith while I see Jim Cymbala on his face before God in prayer. Thankfully, God wants every Christian to pray and so I enjoyed Hanegraaff's work on prayer and I recommend it.

Hank Hanegraaff presents the reader with phenomenal insights to the scriptural Lord's Prayer. I am leading a small group that is studying the Lord's Prayer, and we manage to spend 1.5 hrs discussing 4-5 pages of this book. I have been rereading this book for four months, and it has completely changed my prayer life. There are days that I never get farther than "Our Father..." This book is NOT denominational. Absolutely a must for all of us who feel we need growth in our prayer life.

This book is one of the most significant modern restatements of just war thinking and also a passionate defense of the old principle of noncombatant immunity. The author is both thorough and persuasive in his exploration of a very intricate subject, although some times he loses his objectivity, especially when he's treating the Israeli military responses to various challenges from state and non-state actors. Some other times he takes some sharp legalist turns whish are really difficult to follow. Of course there are many points which really impressed me with their clarity, fine logic and moral soundness: "The state that goes to war is, like our own, an enormous state, governed at a great distance from its ordinary citizens by powerful and often arrogant officials. These officials, or at least the leading among them, are chosen through democratic elections, but at the time of the choice very little is known about their programs and commitments. Political participation is occasional, intermittent, limited in its effects, and is mediated by a system for the distribution of news which is partially controlled by those distant officials and which in any case allows for considerable distortion". "Soldiers, it might be said, stand to civilians like a crew of a liner to its passengers". " I have argued that soldiers in combatcannot plead self-preservation when they violate the rules of war. For the dangers of enemy fire are simply the risks of the activity in which they are engaged, and the have no right to reduce those risks at the expense of other people who are not engaged".

In his afterword, Mr Walzer gives a chilling idea of how a population (even an unarmed one) can tear down and defeat an occupying force. "Nonviolence has been practiced (in the face of an invasion) only after violence, or the threat of violence has failed. Then its protagonists aim to deny the victorious army the fruits of its victory through a systematic policy of civilian resistance and noncooperation: they call upon the conquered people to make themselves ungovernable... They treat the aggressor in effect as a domestic tyrant or usurper, and they turn his soldiers into policemen". If you add to this recipe some dozens of IEDs daily, you have the nightmare of Iraq!

It is the best book sold by the Amazon and at a cheaper price

Walzer's historical approach to examining just war theory is, I think, the most useful way to understand morality in war. That is so because empirical facts back up all the philosophical evaluations. Walzer describes experience and draws conclusions here; he is laying a philosophical foundation and implying, if not prescribing, moral norms from which the rules have been extracted. Be forewarned, he does not cut the reader any slack. This book requires some serious attention to the author's train of thought.

Just war theory has two categories: the justice of going to war, and the justice of fighting once in a war. Walzer's discussion usefully and clearly separates the two and examines via historical events what we regard as right and wrong within each sphere. In doing this he has done the modern world a tremendous service. His logical breakdown speaks to thousands of years of tradition about what thinkers have considered right and wrong in war. One of the best outcomes of this landmark work is the complete debunking of the notion that "all is fair in love and war." That is the path of least moral resistance (or as Clausewitz would say, "friction"), yet we all know that soldiers are honored for fighting well and loathed for behaving like armed thugs and murderers. What is amazing from the discusion is the realization that Walzer knows he has to attack that age-old notion, something our collective sense of justice has historically always rejected. Yet it remains a prevailing idea for many. Originally coined by the Romans it seems (Walzer quotes them, "In war the laws are silent"), they themselves were self-consciously contrite over the fates they inflicted on the Greeks and Carthaginians. The book rates five stars for rigorously addressing this issue alone.

Some make the mistake of thinking Walzer is a pacifist--far from it. On the otherside some critics find his argument about "supreme emergency" a moral failure and a cop-out. The case of Nazi Germany is his paradigmatic case of supreme emergency, one where normal rules may be relaxed, if ever so little, because of the especially pernicious nature of state-sponsored genocide. In contrast Walzer does not see Imperial Japan, for instance, as having represented a supreme emergency, and so the atomic bombings and the fire bombings of cities could not be morally justified. Readers may want to compare his view to Paul Fussell's perspective in the essay "Thank God for the Atom Bomb." Walzer's argument here has lent unintended tacit support to many ideas about torturing terrorists at Gitmo and elsewhere. It's pretty obvious Dick Cheney, for instance, thinks the same relaxation of restraints would apply to Islamic terror (but the analogy seems weak). I recommend readers to Tim Challans' book Awakening Warrior for a critique of Walzer's idea of supreme emergency and a very impressive logical attack upon the recent trend toward torturing POW's in prisons outside the USA.

Significantly for current events, readers interested in the distinction between pre-emptive and preventive war will find a well articulated argument in Just and Unjust Wars. The US attack on Iraq was and still is often justified as pre-emptive. That impulse on the part of the neo-conservatives who devised or whipped up the casus belli reflects, I think, a need to cloak a morally questionable war in the robes of legitimacy. There is no way that attack can be justified under the historically accepted norms of "pre-emption." Michael Walzer's well-thought distinction between pre-emption and prevention makes sense even in the milieu of asymmetric warfare against terror and Islamic radicalism, and it clearly shows why the Iraq war was a moral mistake from the start, regardless of its practical success down the road, if we are fortunate enough to see that. The moral precedent of engaging in preventive war will continue to haunt America long into the future. The fact that Iraq was not even on the spectrum where the fine line between pre-emption and prevention exists is a telling aspect of the overall ongoing strategic fiasco. Where one fails to recognize the moral high ground, one is doomed to moral failure. Walzer was vocal about the run-up to war in 2003, and those who read his book would do well to find his comments about the Iraq invasion; they are edifying in terms of understanding the overall argument in this book and, not coincidentally, where we are going in this role as the world's police force.

This is a very legalistic look at history. It helps one understand many of the words used in talking about wars.

At a lecture at West Point United States Military Academy April 6, 2006, Naom Chomsky argued, "Just war theory" literature "deserves special attention but is ultimately not very instructive about just war". "Just war theory" is "declarations of personal preference", which "never tells you anything. It doesn't tell you when it is proper to intervene, what it tells you is 'I think it is proper to intervene'...there is a big gap between assertion and argument, between surmise and evidence." "We learn very little about just war from 'Just war theory'" what we do learn is "mostly about the prevailing moral and intellectual climate in which we live." Walzer's book relies crucially on such premises as "Seems to me entirely justified, or I believe, or no doubt." Chomsky then discusses scientific studies on human behavior which is noticeably absent from Walzer's book.

Walzer uses the term "I think" at least 52 times in the book. "I don't think" 7 times. "I believe" twice, "no doubt" at least 41 times, and "seems to me" 12 times (I write "at least" because the same phrase twice on one page would be counted once.)

Walzer's hypocricy

In a book which suffers from terribly bad organization, on page 62 Walzer finally systematically lays out his arguments, stating that "Once the agressor state has been militarily repulsed, it can also be punished."

On December 29, 2005, in an interview on NPR Morning Edition ('Just and Unjust Wars' Author Critical on Iraq.) Walzer stated that the Iraq war was not a just war:

"If you are going to use military force in someone else's county...There has to be a cause of some urgency, a massacre in progress. A massacre in memory is not a just cause."

Therefore, if you follow Walzer's assertions to its obvious conclusion, the Iraq war was not a just war and therefore "the agressor state", the US, should "be punished."

But Walzer signed and endorsed The Euston Manifesto, which states in part:

"We are also united in the view that, since the day on which this occurred, the proper concern of genuine liberals and members of the Left should have been the battle to put in place in Iraq a democratic political order and to rebuild the country's infrastructure...rather than picking through the rubble of the arguments over intervention."

Therefore in Just and unjust wars, Walzer argues that "agressor states" should be "punished" but yet Walzer signs a document which criticize those who "pick through the rubble of the arguments over intervention."

Although the Iraq War is not covered in this book, Walzer's inconsistent views on the Iraq war should give serious students of International affairs pause before subscribing to his arguments. It is one mans opinion, full of statments such as "Seems to me entirely justified" "I believe" or "no doubt."

Walzer's arguments are unscientific rablings of one intellectual which are "ultimately not very instructive about just war".

Oh, how I enjoyed this historical fiction! I was taken in by this book the moment that I opened its cover. I love this author's writing style, and loved the setting of the Civil War era, in small-town Iowa. Very powerful and moving book, written as letters to a sister. Kept my attention quite well, and I found myself looking forward to bedtime so I could read this book. Has a lot of elements of a cozy mystery - no swearing or profanity, there is a murder but isn't graphic, there is good mystery, it is set in a small town. Only thing missing is the sleuth - the reader is the one who has to do the sleuthing!

I so enjoyed this book. It was my first of Dallas's books and I just couldn't wait to read more. It was such a satisfying and engrossing story. The historical background was facinating as I love to learn about the civil war. The main character, Alice, was so honest one couldn't help but love her. A story of integrity and friendship, love and tolerance. Very genuine and beautiful. I love the tender and ever-changing relationship between Alice and her mother-in-law. Although some may feel there are too many events in some of Dallas's books to make them believable I disagree. That is what makes them so entertaining and delightful. This book is one of my all time favorites, and I read a lot! A true love story of dedication and sacrifice. Wonderful--I will be sharing it with all my reading buddies.

Once again, Dallas has done a great job fleshing out realistic and memorable characters, from naive, optimistic Alice to her bristly mother-in-law to uneducated, determined Annie, whose path crosses that of the Bullocks when the war devastates her home. The story pulls you in thoroughly, and won't let go until you've read to the end.

Alice's Tulips by Sandra Dallas is a story of a young newlywed suddenly finding herself running her husband Charlie's farm with his not-so-agreeable mother when her husband joins the Union Army. The story is told in Alice's letters to her sister, telling her all the happenings in the small Iowa town she now lives in. Before each chapter, there is a quote from a quilting book, as the book is somewhat centered around Alice's quilts. Soon, two orphan girls wander into the lives of Alice and her mother-in-law Mother Bullock. Anne and Joybell help Alice cope with her loneliness and bring a little more excitement to the farm. Trouble begins brewing when Alice meets Mr.Samuel Smead, the brother of her friend's husband. They casually flirt, but Alice doesn't mean anything by it. After a time of flirting, Mr.Smead becomes more dangerous, and eventually rapes Alice. After a couple of days, Mr.Smead's dead body is found, and everyone in the town blames Alice. The only thing keeping her from being hanged is Mother Bullock's good reputation, and she has sworn Alice's innocence. After a couple more years pass, Mother Bullock passes away, claiming responsibility for Mr.Smead's death on her death bed. Now, Anne and Alice are left to run the farm, but the town is starting to accept Alice again. After the war has been over for many months, Charlie finally returns to Alice and they live happily ever after.
I think this book was made very interesting by the format of the letters from Alice to her sister. The book portrayed the conflict of the Civil War well, as it showed how the North hated the South and vice-versa. It showed the very normal situation of a young women left at home to run the farm by herself while her husband is away fighting in the war. Also, Alice is confronted with many different issues, such as rape and discrimination. Times have indeed changed as rape back then was common but never discussed in public. Sandra Dallas did an excellent job in taking the reader back to the late 1700s and showing the conflicts that many people, especially women, endured during the Civil War. I learned from this book how power and the quest for power greatly creates coflict and resolution, such as the Civil War.

I enjoyed this book. With each of Dallas's books, I'm amazed at her ability to create such lifelike characters in such diverse settings. Having the book written in the form of letters is a nice change, and allows the reader to really get understand the workings of the character's mind. I've passed this book around a circle of my friends, and all have enjoyed reading it.

Warning: I have published theory with the lowest impact factor, and I have written an unpublished book on the nature of theory.

This book is a transcript of seven extemporized lectures for the mathematically challenged. It is quite remarkable for perceptive interpretations of physics with a minimum of maths and as a bonus, the reader gets an insight into the mind of a truly leading theoretician. If you want an initial insight as to how physics works, excellent. Unfortunately, extemporization leads to "forgetfulness", e.g. "action" is stated to arise from and is fundamental to quantum mechanics, but is not mentioned in the discussion on quantum mechanics.

I believe the title is misleading. The book will not help or encourage an emerging theoretician. How to form a theory: Guess, compute, compare with observation. The rest of the book is argued to be no guidance, because any new theory will be quite different from the examples! Worse, we know all theory except at extreme energies or distances. (We could be wrong, but we aren't!)

I disagree. The book states on nuclear binding, apart from proton electrical repulsions, neutrons and protons interact with a constant energy. Theory is sound, but cannot be computed completely. Instead, suppose hadrons comprise up and down quarks, with different electric charge, that produce two types of interactions. Believe it or not, that, with consideration of that "action" is sufficient to produce relative stabilities for isotopes, and show why technetium has no stable isotope, and to indicate nuclear binding could come from electromagnetism. Wrong? Maybe, but isn't the fun of theory trying things out? Feynman offers no encouragement, little hope, and surprisingly, no insight on how he developed his theories. That is a pity.

I have learnt a lot of things that I didn't know from this book and also new concepts and new ways of looking at physical matters, but have also found many passages difficult to understand and even controversial. The style is too "popularized" for my taste, despite the great admiration I - a simple civil engineer - have for a great physicist like Richard Feynman

Dr. Feynman's love of science is most evident when he does presentations for non-professionals. His descriptions are complete and clear, helping us truly understand without the overwhelming mathematics that is his stock in trade. I am a physicist myself, and I still learn something every time I read one of his books. Try "You Must Be Kidding" for another fun trip.

My title is one sentence from these lectures. I was a math major, and had never heard my subject decribed so well.

The 12yrold son of friend of mine watched the six hours of videotape from which this book was transcribed in a single sitting, utterly refusing to stop.

This is Feynman at his absolute best, sharing his unique insights into the most fascinating subjects of all.

I wish Amazon would offer every reviewer the opportunity to give one book six stars, meaning 'better than the best'. For me, this book would get the six.

A great book by a great scientist.
Richard Feynman was a genius, a great scientist and a great teacher. This book is a testament to all three of these contentions. As the title states, this book is about physical laws: what they are, what they are not and why they require mathematics for their complete understanding. While the need to understand physical laws in terms of mathematics is stressed, this book uses almost no math, and none beyond basic high school math is required.

The book is based on 7 lectures, each of which is covered by an approximately 25-page chapter. These chapters cover: the law of gravitation, the relation of mathematics to physics, the great conservation principals, symmetry in physical law, distinction of past and future, probability and uncertainty, and seeking new laws. These chapters touch on classical physics, relativistic physics and quantum mechanics, all in a fluid and continuous manner. This book is not, however, a physics text because it does not discuss how to solve specific problems. It is, however, a great adjunct to those texts as it goes deeper into what physical laws really mean.

The stated audience for this book is people who are interested in science, but may have little or no background in this field. This is not to say that people who are well versed in the physical sciences would get nothing from this book. Quite the contrary, the more your scientific background the more you will get from the time spent with this book. Theoretical physicists may already understand all of what Professor Feynman is teaching, so this may be old hat to them. They may, however, still enjoy the presentation, so even they may get something from this book. As someone with an advanced degree in the physical sciences, but not in theoretical physics, I found this book to be mind expanding. Feynman gets to the heart of physical laws in ways that I had never considered. For instance, he provides one of the best descriptions of the first and second laws of thermodynamics that I have ever read, but never mentions them as laws per se, as he shows that they are manifestations of more fundamental laws. (Actually, he shows that there is no single set of fundamental laws, as many different ones could be used as the starting point to get to the same conclusions.) College physics students should love this book. It should be of immeasurable help in their more fully understanding what their texts may only hint at. Those with only a high school physics background should also get a lot from this book, but it may be a bit of a hard slog for them.

"Four Days of Glory," was a super read. Kreidler takes us right into the hard, lonely world of high school wrestling. It was great following these two wrestlers as they deal with all the pressures of trying to accomplish a huge feat. It's not just about takedowns and nearfalls, it's about fathers and sons, hometown hero's and an obsession with goals. Very entertaining...It's "Friday Night Lights," for wrestling in the state of Iowa.

I couldn't put the book down. Keidler captured the essence of the epic journey of both the wrestlers and their families. He exposes some of the evils involved in youth programs and with parenting yet doesn't dwell on the negatives, allowing the reader to make his or her own judgement. After reading the book a trip to the Iowa State Wrestling Finals has been added to my bucket list of sporting events to see. As a non-wrestler I have always admired the dedication and spirit of the sport and this book provided even more appreciation. The ultimate compliment I can give the book is that since finishing it I find myself checking the progress of the wrestlers as they compete in college. Kreidler really stuck it!!

A great read on two wrestlers who seek greatness in Iowa High School wrestling. The book focuses on the intensity and drive required to be the best. As someone who doensn't live in Iowa, I came away with an appreciation of how big wrestling is in Iowa. Drama, challenges and interesting characters are all here. This is one of the very few books that I will re-read.

Well written book. Couldn't put it down. Best wrestling book I've read. Accurately depicts the rabidness of wrestling fans.

Good book for any wrestler who wants to understand what it takes to become a great wrestler. Well written and honest.

Every several years many of us daydream about buying some country property on a lake or a stream somewhere, away from all the demands of our jobs and modern society in general. This book enables one to not only walk alongside someone who did just that, but to "get in his head" and experience his joys, frustrations and--finally--success as he finds a piece of country property "dirt cheap."

Not only is this a a well-written story that you won't be able to put down, but there are quite a few nuggets of real estate wisdom that have enormous practical value -- regardless of what part of the country you live in. As such, it should be required reading for every Principles of Real Estate class.

Turner's tale of his search for rural land is a fun read. anyone looking at this page and reading this review obviously has a little dream of buying a piece of land - and this book is not only full of good advice for your own search, but it's inspiring. Turner used tactics that I certainly wouldn't have though of. The books is not written like a how-to book, in fact it almost resembles a journal more than anything. But sometimes a little down to earth anecdote is nice to read before bed. It's a very fast and pleasant 230 pages that will likely leave you optimistic about your chances of finding a piece of rural land. Good luck!

For those that are looking for an A-B-C, follow the list type guide to finding cheap land, keep on looking. Though there is a list of the steps used, it takes only a couple of pages near the end. If you are too lazy to read the rest, and instead skip to the list, you will miss out on a lot of good advice.

Now for the rest of you that are smart enough to enjoy Mr. Turner's tale of how he found it, and glean the tidbits of information bestowed throughout the tale, you will walk away with invaluable information that will let you find the land that you want at a price you can afford.

This book is an excellent and quick read- I finished it in one day. Although not directly suited to my purpose, the book contains great advice on finding a small acreage (4-12) property in the country.

Most of all the book made me feel even better about our opportunities- as the writer repeatedly commented on how much easier his search would have been if he was looking to buy 40 or more acres of land. Wouldn't you know it, that is what we are looking to do.

The author has a flowing and folksy writing style, that doesn't get bogged down with too much technical real estate jargon- and footnotes are provided in the rare instances where technical terms occur. This book is in many ways much more than a book about how to buy property cheap, it is the author's life story- his dreams and aspirations for a place in the country since his boyhood.

I highly recommend this book for anyone looking to purchase land in the country.

The information in this book is worth the price you pay for it. I had fumbled around looking for land and only found a couple of the many tips he offers for finding and buying land. The author presents the information as his experience finding and buying a piece of land to be used as a get away and week end home. He explains why small parcels of land are more expensive per acre compared to large parcels of land.

His tips on buying land are summarized in a two page appendix. I think the one thing he left out of his summary was "get lucky and stumble across someone who will sell you land for cheap". If this was a "how to" book, it would be a pamphlet.

While not an exciting story, it is engaging. I found that I lost track of time while reading it. I have no need to be as thrifty as the author, however.

This year our baseball team (comprised of 13-16 yr olds) decided end of year trophies would be a little juvenile for the boys. The coach let me know about this book and thought it would be a good idea to give each of the boys one for the end of the season gift. We did and it was very well received! An amazing book for anyone that aspires to do something more with their life!

Well written and very easy to read! I highly reccomend!

This book provides an excellent insight into the life of Lou Holtz and his motivational attitude on life. His dry humor will make you laugh, his thoughts inspiring, and make you think W.I.N. for those tough decisions in life.

Lou listed some great stories.

In fact that is one reason why this is a great book, because Lou is an AWESOME story teller.
Listen to the audio book as you read, Lou narrates this book very well.

Lou has lived an amazing life.
He just got it done, no matter what he does.
Anyone can pick up some great tips about being more successful from this book.

Paul

This is an excellent read! You won't want to put it down and it will make you do some self examination.

An inspiring memoir full of famous personalities from sports and politics. Lou's humble beginnings and deep-rooted faith in family and religion took him to the top of the college football world and into the circles of many of America's most famous leaders. This is quite a guy.