Living History Books

This book was purchased for our 7 year old daughters first book club. It was an interesting book for them to read. They all enjoyed trying to make the paper cranes. It was a nice length of book for their first book club also.

Sadako and the Thousand Paper Cranes
By Eleanor Coerr
Penguin Group
1977 first published by G.P. Putnam's Sons
1999 published by Penguin Group

3.3 Flesh Kincaid reading level
80 pages

Historical Fiction

Plot:
Sadako is an eleven-year-old Japanese girl who lives with her older brother, younger sister, younger brother and parents in Hiroshima, Japan. The story takes place in 1955 after World War II. Like all young children, Sadako attends school, helps her family with chores, and has a best friend at school. Sadako loves to run and is chosen to participate in a race at school. While running one day she feels slightly dizzy. Sadako has heard stories about children being getting sick from the atom bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. She is too scared to tell anybody about being dizzy, so she keeps it a big secret. One day while running Sadako collapses. She is taken to the hospital and the doctors tell her she has leukemia.
While in the hospital, Sadako hears a legend from a friend that gives her hope of getting better. The legend says that if a person folds one thousand paper cranes out of paper they may be healed. Each day Sadako becomes sicker and sicker. However, she decides to fold one thousand origami cranes. Her brother helps her by hanging the cranes from the ceiling. Even though Sadako folds hundreds of cranes, she is unable to finish the project. She passes away having made only 648 cranes. Her friends from school hear her story and they fold the remaining cranes so that she is buried with one thousand paper cranes.

Review:
This book gave me lots of hope. I really loved to hear about Sadako and how she folded so many cranes. I wanted to believe that she would finish the paper cranes and she would get better. When she died in the ending it was very sad. Someone with so much hope and motivation doesn't deserve to die. The book also made me think a lot about why Sadako was sick in the first place. She was only two-years-old when the Americans dropped the bomb on Hiroshima, but she was still eventually killed from it. This book shows the long-lasting effects war has on a country and its people. It really makes you think twice about war.
I really enjoyed reading this book. It was an easy read that I had a hard time putting down. Every chance I got I read this book! While it was sad in the end, it was great to hear about Sadako's life and how her friends finished her paper cranes for her. The plot was interesting and exciting. I really like the main character too. Sadako was a very brave, strong person that I wish I was more like. She woke up every day with the will to live and that gave me a lot of hope. I would recommend this book to anyone! It is a must read!!

The 4th graders in my school read this book in their regular reading classes, and so they were ready to have some great discussions in art class about the book. We used this as a starter for an origami crane project, and we are going to donate the cranes to a woman who is struggling to fight cancer. This a a wonderful story and the kids were really interested in learning more about WWII after reading this book.

"Sadako and the thousand paper crane" is a good book to read. Its about a twelve year old girl name sadako who dreams in being the track team when she goes to middle school. Then one day, she collapsed when she was on her way to school. she was sent to the hospital the following day. When the testings were finished, sadako was diagnoised with leukemia. when sadako`s best friend came to visit her in the hospital she told her that if a sick person were to fold a thousand paper cranes they get a wish from the gods. Sadako began folding her paper cranes and with the help from her friends and family. Sadako died peacefully in her sleep. sadako`s classmates folded the rest of the cranes and buried them beside her grave. This book inspired me not to give up and keep on following my dreams. I recommend this book number one.

This is one of the best stories for all ages to learn about and understand the tragedies and impact of war. It is a wonderful story and I recommend this book for anyone and everyone to read. The central message of the story is one that will be remembered by those who read it for a lifetime.

Absolutely perfect biography. Graham's book is frank in ways few would care to be. Her leadership of the Washington Post has been much talked about, and I'm a big fan of the paper, so it was a fascinating story. When she took over the Post in the 1960s, women could not be found in too many positions of power. She honestly discusses her difficulties, self doubts, and mistakes in ways one is not likely to find in many other places. Since I find politics interesting, I appreciated Graham's insights into the development of media over the twentieth century and her candid insider thoughts on some of the most important and powerful leaders of the 20th century.

This is a great book about a great woman! Interesting to see how even the privileged have difficult experiences in life and how it all only depend on us. We are very capable of achieving our goals and this book shows that even though it might not be easy, in the end, it can be very rewarding. This book shows a great insight in the history of newspaper business and politics.

It is long (642 pages), and the print is small. Why would anyone want to read it? Because every page has something of interest in it. And because this is not only the personal history of Katharine Graham, but a view of the United States from a woman reluctantly thrust into power by the death of her Washington Post husband. The time covered is from the early 1900s, when her parents met, through the early 1990s. Think of how life changed during that time.

Mrs. Graham was raised by nannies in New York while her parents were busy helping out in Washington. She showed her independence by attending the radical University of Chicago and working before she married. When Katherine's father stepped down from management of the Washington Post, her husband, Phil, took his place. When Phil became ill and died, it was she who became president of the Washington Post Company.

Constantly during this sweep through politics, labor relations, corporate management, the rise of feminism, the importance of communications, and much more, Graham weaves her personal growing consciousness of where she and other women stand in relationship to it all. She writes of the help she received and downplays her own acumen in becoming the only woman in the Fortune 500. Never does she flaunt who she was, who she became, and the power she held.

Every page brings not only her personal insights about the (mostly) maturing of America, but also explains how she gains confidence while remaining concerned with and involved in her own family as well. An excellent read, but don't expect to finish it in one reading.

by Judith Helburn
for StorycircleBookReviews
www.storycirclebookreviewsorg
reviewing books by, for, and about women

Fantastic, gripping book, though it bogged down for me near the end with the minutia of labor/management disputes at the Washington Post. Still recommend highly.

My only regret is that I did not pay more attention to Katharine Graham and the Washington Post while she was alive. Through unveiling her own insecurities and illustrating how she moved into one of the most powerful women in the world, I learned US History and the trials of a CEO woman in the 1960s and forward.

Ms. Graham reveals much about "inside Washington" and does a particularly good job of making the "players" come to life. I really hated to see the book end. Yet, Ms. Graham did what she set out to do -- documented a time in our history. Kathy Condon Executive Coach

It's ok. If you are a true eminem fan then you know all of his lyrics already, when i purchased this book i thought it really dug into the mind of this genius but it doesnt. He just tells how his life was messed up at the time in every song and some stupid stuff that was going on while he recorded each track, its really not that interesting. I am a die hard eminem fan and i didnt find this book that great. It's nice beacause it gives lyrics to some of his sick freestyles but other than that, if you really love eminem then you know everything else that is in this book and you dont need it, unless you want it like I did. I dont regret it but i have trouble recommending it to true eminem fans because it is really not necessary.

This book is alot about his raps on paper. If your into his lyrics, great book, if you want an autobiography, then maybe look elsewere.........

"The struggle" has always been a mainstay that epitomizes the hip hop persona. Eminem is able to detail his struggle to make it (a.k.a. "the come up") in his book "Angry Blonde" through his descriptions of each of his songs off his first two albums and the complete lyrics to each song. His introduction paragraphs to each song are the best part of the book. These paragraphs reveal how he came up with the idea for the track, how he felt when he wrote it, and tell the reader a lot about the creative process.

Eminem's first two albums truly tell the story of the man; "The Slim Shady LP" when he was struggling just to get by and in "The Marshall Mathers LP" with his reaction to overnight celebrity. Two of the most successful albums of all-time (not just in hip hop history), these albums sold over 28 million records combined worldwide. To look into the mind of a man that could make music that would be heard by so many people and to read those words that so many heard is truly motivational. As an artist whose dream is to reach as many people as Eminem, his words and story are an inspiration and provide me with one of the driving forces behind my career.

I went and bought this book and it was what i had expected it to be, very good but nothing excellent. It provides an excellent insight into what eminem was thinking and the circumstances surrounding him as to why he decided to write the songs and the songs beginnings. It's good because this is written by eminem in his own words and through his feelings. the pictures are a nice supplement and so are the extra freestyles that are provided at the end of the book. very good and an essentiality for all Eminem fans.

It's one thing to hear his music, but to read what's behind it makes us realize why he is the way he is and why he is one of the best in the game- a must-read.

It is funny how people read this book and still come out the other side with a "Paul" or "Apollos" stand. The church is an organism not an organization. I am neither Roman Catholic nor Protestant. Yet I do admit I would have troubles with someone who has a image of the virgin Mary in their home with candles burning in front of it and holds the pope as supreme. I would also have trouble with someone who profits from the Gospel and does not define and live by Gospel precepts. To walk away from this book and say "see the Protestants are wrong or see the Roman Catholics are wrong" is siding with your religion in order to avoid persecution. Both are wrong. Both are idolatrous and are consumed with "their" orthodoxy over orthopraxy. With ritual over love.

For those of us who think our own religion is the "true church" and none other, this book will really give you an eye opening experience as to what it meant to be a genuine Christian before about 350 A.D. There is no theology presented in this book, because at the time the Christian church began, after the death of Christ, there were no division of beliefs for all were of one faith, one baptism and one flock. The original faith of Christ was held together with no internal schisms for 300 years.

It was a time of true suffering to be a Christian, suffering to the point of having a hot iron put on the bottom of your feet and other atrocities too horrible to mention. Something people in the U.S.A. in modern times have not had to deal with, for we can all worship as we please. It shows how all religions that exist today (24,000 roughly since the Reformation period of about 1550 A.D. do not entirely follow the true teachings of Christ as much as we think we do). Before Christianity was accepted as a religion by Constantine, and the Milan Edict was issued, no one accept true believers in God wanted to became a Christian, because being a Christian meant suffering and truly carrying your cross to bear and was no accepted by society, as Jesus so often mentioned in the gospels. It wasn't until Constantine came into power that it became popular to belong to the church, where the church began to have some presence in that the converted emperor built lavish and beautiful cathedrals throughout the land, as well as, had scribes make beautiful bibles for all to read, that began to attract the masses to join the church. Prior to this time, Christians gave all their money to poor and lived in poverty and sometimes starvation for the good of the whole community. How many of us today can really say we have given our all to help the poor? I know myself, I cannot truly say that I have concentrated on the needs of our poor, but I know now I am going to pay more attention to this area of my life and become truly giving to those in need.

After reading this book, no longer will I judge others for their beliefs erroneously thinking that my religion is the true church, because as Jesus said, "all of us have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God". This book will open your eyes and let you really see the truth from God's point of view, free from theology biases and just plain make you aware. I cannot give this book a higher rating than 5 stars, but if I could I would give it a 10 star. It is the best book I've read in 2 years. It was so good, that I didn't go to bed the night I bought it, until 5:00 a.m., until I finished it completely.

If you are one of those people that have made up their minds and do not want to change their minds about their beliefs, then this is not the book for you. If you are a seeker of truth, wisdom and God's enlightenment through the Holy Spirit, this book will make you radiate with sincere love for your fellow man and put a smile on your face from ear to ear. Read it if you dare.

When we are reminded that the early Christian church operated under the inspired authority of the apostles it should give give one pause as to how far we have drifted from what the apostles taught and the early church practiced. It is interesting how "mainstream Christianity" has morphed to become almost the polar opposite as to what was originally taught and practiced by the early church under the direction of the apostles.

Warning: This book is full of opinion, conjecture, and false conclusions that Bercot provides no basis for. He has slipped many of them in where they are most likely to go unnoticed and taken for truth. Readers beware.

I struggle with this book by David Bercot - as a critique of the evangelical church in America I would give this book 4 stars, but as an historical glance at the primitive church it would only receive 2 stars. Bercot begins in his introduction by saying that he will allow the early fathers to speak for themselves. Yes, he does this to some extent, but he fails to give the reader any historical context. He also only allows the fathers to say the things he wants them to say - in other words, there are many other things these early fathers said that are not included because they either contradict his thesis or are not as flattering. I could lift numerous passages from the Gospel of Truth (we think Valentius was the author) that would sound great; I could also find numerous passages from almost any of the fathers Bercot used that would be far less flattering. Historical context is everything.

After my critique of a similar work someone sarcastically wrote to me, "...You think nobody can possibly read the early fathers and understand them. I guess we all need a Ph.D. to be able to understand anything." I certainly do NOT want to give anyone the idea that only pinheaded Ph.D.s can read/understand the early fathers, but it is not an easy task. Most of us have some idea of what the apostle Paul means when he tells women not to cut their hair, and tells the men not to wear their hair long. While commentaries on 1 Corinthians are fairly easy to find, very few people have scholarly works sitting on their shelves to help them understand what Tertullian means when he describes how to deal with "sinners" in the church,

...when you lead the penitent adulterer into church to beg the intercession of the brethren, place him on his knees in their midst, covered with sackcloth and ashes, in an attitude of humiliation and fear, in the presence of the widows, in the presence of the priests, moving all to tears, kissing the footprints of all, embracing the knees of all. On Purity 13

I do not want to come across as demeaning and I do not want to critique each and every issue I disagree with in this book, but there are many shortcomings I think should be pointed out. I will mention the places where I agree with Bercot, and I will try to illustrate why I disagree on some issues. My overview of Bercot is that he takes a very simplistic reading of these early writers. My primary methodology will be to give examples from these writers that either contradicts, or shows a different angle, from what Bercot reports.

Bercot's introduction is the martyrdom of Polycarp - it is almost impossible to criticize the use of this inspiring passage. In Chapter 2, however, Bercot reveals what to me is a telling bias when he says, "...these men were not church fathers! Most of them were fairly ordinary, hard-working Christian leaders with above-average education. They would have been highly indignant at being called 'church fathers.' The only 'church fathers' they recognized were the apostles." (p.6)

This statement is silly. My guess is that Bercot is anticipating an anti-Catholic bias in his audience that would view the term "church father" as a four-letter word. The second century fathers certainly would not have considered themselves to be "fathers" - they only became fathers in the next few centuries! As a good friend suggested, most of these men were fairly educated and thus could not have been "fairly ordinary" during this timeframe. They lived in a world where the overwhelming percentage of the population was illiterate. Indeed, most of these writers were far from ordinary men since they were leaders in the church. And they ARE now known as "fathers" precisely because they were extraordinary.

In Chapter 4 Bercot begins his direct critique on 20th century North American evangelicalism (remember this book was written in 1989). I basically agree with many of his comments regarding divorce and abortion - if he were writing now he might criticize the basic evangelical position on homosexuality. I have my own concerns regarding feminism and the effect this issue has had on American Christian men, but Bercot's comments on women in Chapter 4 reveal either a lack of understanding of the biblical text (at least of NT scholarship) and the ancient world, or a rejection of the best evangelical scholarship on the topic. I realize that many fundamentalists and ultra-conservatives would agree with Bercot.

Gordon Fee released his NIV commentary on 1 Corinthians in 1987 where he showed, quite convincingly, that the "women shall keep silent" passage in 1 Cor 14 almost certainly was not in the original Pauline letter. Because of this it is problematic to use the complimentary text from 1 Timothy since most non-conversative scholars doubt Pauline authorship of that NT letter (the fact that I DO hold to Pauline authorship of the Pastorals does not change my mind - this is NOT a good argument from the biblical text). Bercot's comments regarding women in the ancient world are stunning - is he really saying that women were seen as equals in the Greco-Roman world?

"But Roman women were hardly known for their submissive character. As one Roman commented, 'We rule the world, but our women rule us.'" (p.36)

When I read this I found myself thinking, "Who said that?" I followed the footnote and found that Bercot is citing a secondary work...and only gives us the page number! Bart Winer said this on page 176!? This is Bercot's ONLY scholarly notation for making such a claim.

He says that the early church went against the ancient culture by denying women any role in leadership. I would say that the apostle Paul went against Greek, Roman, and Hebrew culture by OPENING the doors of leadership to women. This is not the place to present this data. It was the non-Pauline early church that went against the Pauline tradition left to us in the New Testament.

Chapters 5 and 6 are basically just "good preaching."

"This was one of the secrets of the early Christians. They were able to reject the ungodly attitudes, practices, and entertainment of their culture..." (p.42)

It becomes clear reading these chapters that Bercot is Wesleyan, or anti-Reformed, in his theology. Bercot wants to challenge evangelicals to shun what Bonhoeffer coined "cheap grace." While I agree with this challenge, I do not like using these early writers for support. Each of these early church fathers had their own challenges: Clement of Alexandria did cite the New Testament quite a lot, but he also cited, and was heavily influenced by, Plato as well. Although he attacked the Gnostics, he embraced some aspects of Gnosticism. Tertullian stays away from Greek philosophy, but he holds a very strict view on repentance and restoration - he actually joins the Montanists (the group Bercot calls heretical on page 37), the sect that had women serving in leadership. He eventually left the Montanists because they were also too "liberal" regarding repentance and started his own group.

At the end of Chapter 6 (pp.66-67) Bercot tells us that the Gnostics preached salvation by grace alone. I have read and studied 15 or more Gnostic texts, and I have read numerous scholars whose expertise is Gnosticism - I have never heard Gnostics referred to in this way. Gnostics believed that salvation was obtained through learning gnosis, knowledge. This knowledge helped them traverse through the heavenly levels by equipping them with secret passwords. Salvation through grace alone? I have never seen or heard anything in Gnostic texts that made me think of salvation by grace alone.

Tertullian is one of the strictest second century fathers yet he says this regarding the struggle against sin,

"It is a fact that there are some sins which beset us every day and to which we all are tempted. For who will not, as it may chance, fall into unrighteous anger and continue this even beyond sundown, or even strike another or, out of easy habit, curse another, or swear rashly, or violate his pledged faith, or tell a lie through shame or the compulsion of circumstances? In the management of affairs, in the performance of duties, in commercial transactions, while eating, looking, listening -- how often we are tempted! So much so that if there were no pardon in such cases, no one would be saved. For these sins, then, pardon is granted through Christ who intercedes with the Father." On Purity 19

I am not sure what Bercot would say about this passage, but it seems to go against his focus in these two chapters.

In Chapter 7 Bercot attacks the doctrine of Predestination. One of his targets seems to be Martin Luther. I have never read/heard Luther attacked for predestination and I have no idea if he held to this position. I agree with Bercot that the second century fathers did not promote predestination, but a significant part of his argument comes from a lengthy passage in Origen's On First Principles. In this same document Origen presents his speculative theory of universalism. This is one of several issues that led to the "Origenist controversy" which caused problems for several centuries. For Bercot to use anything from this document seems ironic at best.

Chapter 8 is on baptism. Bercot basically maintains that evangelicals have marginalized water baptism. I agree with him for the most part.

Chapter 9 is on prosperity and the "name it, claim it" teaching that was far more popular in the 80's. Again, I basically agree with Bercot on his criticism, I just would not use these early Christian fathers as evidence. As I mentioned earlier, these men were NOT ordinary. Few believers had wealth in the second century - most were of the lower class. But there were wealthy believers who did not give away all of their possessions and were not urged to do so. One interesting point is that Bercot uses a quote from Clement of Alexandria's Who is the Rich Man Being Saved. It might be interesting to hear a few of the points Clement gives in that treatise.

Rich Man is Clement's commentary on the story of the Rich Young Ruler as told in Mark's gospel. It is important to remember that giving away one's possessions to live in poverty (or at least to live a very simple lifestyle) was not something new in the day of Clement, or during the time of Jesus for that matter. Neo-Pythagoreans, most notably Apollonius of Tyana, promoted a rigorous asceticism which included a rejection of material possessions. Clement does his best in all his writings to present Christian faith as THE best philosophical system, so he tends to take some positions that appear to go against typical orthodox thought if it will help him accomplish his desired goal. He also has in mind people like those in the Montanist movement which advocated the rejection of material worldly goods in favor of the soon coming heavenly kingdom.

In chapter 13 of Rich Man Clement argues that the Lord enjoins us to "give drink to the thirsty, bread to the hungry, to take the houseless in, and clothe the naked," but that this is impossible to do IF you have given ALL of your material possessions away.

"Riches, then, which benefit also our neighbours, are not to be thrown away. For they are possessions, inasmuch as they are possessed, and goods, inasmuch as they are useful and provided by God for the use of men; and they lie to our hand, and are put under our power, as material and instruments which are for good use to those who know the instrument. If you use it skilfully, it is skilful; if you are deficient in skill, it is affected by your want of skill, being itself destitute of blame. Such an instrument is wealth." Rich Man 14

"So that (the expression) rich men that shall with difficulty enter into the kingdom, is to be apprehended in a scholarly way, not awkwardly, or rustically, or carnally." Rich Man 18

When Bercot presents the early church as one that embraced poverty, he is correct - the majority were poor and were encouraged to embrace that state as something they could not easily change. To say that the early church fathers consistently taught the rejection of wealth is just not accurate.

In Chapter 10 Bercot focuses on the proper Christian attitude towards war? Bercot does admit that "the early church made no law that Christians could not serve in the army...Neither Jesus nor the apostles ever strictly forbade Christians to serve in the military," but he goes on to say that the empire was experiencing peace during the second century and soldiers were more like police officers. (p.97)

Here is the historical context: every 20 to 40 years Christianity would get slapped around. Pastors and bishops would be arrested, thrown in jail, and some would be executed. Laypeople would be tortured and forced to sprinkle salt on the altar to the empire at the risk of being thrown to wild animals in an amphitheatre. Roman soldiers were known for their cruelty in battle, but they were also known for their cruelty towards Christians during these times of persecution. Even during times of peace Roman soldiers had license to make harsh demands on average citizens.

With this context in mind, why would Christians be encouraged to serve in the military? I know a man who was a pastor in Cuba when Fidel Castro led the Communist takeover. He fled with his family, but many of his friends were ripped from their beds in the middle of the night, beaten, imprisoned, and some killed. Would it surprise anyone if Christians in Communist Cuba were discouraged from enlisting in the military after the takeover? You cannot compare military service in modern-day USA with the Roman empire. You might disagree with the actions of the USA in Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq, but you simply cannot objectively compare Christians serving in the USA to that of the Roman Empire. You cannot compare soldiers in the US military to those in the Roman empire.

The early fathers discouraged military service, but they also discouraged believers to be involved in politics. Overall, they speak negatively about politics. Does this mean that we should discourage believers from serving in the political arena as well? The problem with this presentation is that the New Testament does not have this prohibition against military service or politics. As much as I respect the early fathers, the NT is our primary authority when it comes to the teaching of the apostles.

In fact, we are given a fairly positive view of military service in the NT.
- Jesus heals the daughter of the Roman centurion with no indication of displeasure for his military service - Luke 7:1-10
- Peter shares the gospel with Cornelius - Acts 10
- Paul refers to believers in the household of Caesar - Phil 4:22
- Paul uses soldiers as a positive analogy - 1 Cor 9:7; Phil 2:25; 2 Tim 2:3-4

The remainder of the book is basically an attack on Constantine, Augustine, the Nicean Council, and everything else Catholic. Bercot argues that the second century church was far more dedicated, yet the writers he uses complain in many places about the worldliness of the church in their day. Were there growing problems in the church after the second century? Yes, as the church grew numerically and into new cultures, and as church leadership became more structured and hierarchical, problems increased. Theological issues developed due to heretical movements - a growing theology led to theological disputes.

My overall critique of Bercot's book is this: he points to the second century church as an ideal that should be emulated. While I think there are positives to be seen in every era of church history, I do not think the second century, or any other era, should be pointed to as the "ideal." In addition to the various specific critiques I have offered, the second century writers also held numerous doctrinal positions that Bercot would NOT want us to embrace: purgatory (Origen), mortal and venal sins (Tertullian), forgiveness of sins rests with the bishop (Ignatius, Cyprian), and many others. It appears to me that Bercot takes the Early Church Fathers on CD and does a "Ctrl + F" to "Find" passages that speak to a particular issue. If he likes a passage, he uses it. If the passage does not support his thesis, he ignores it.

The writings of the early church fathers must be read with a good secondary scholar in hand and used with care. I would recommend W.H.C. Frend, Hans Lietzmann, and Henry Chadwick. Historical context is critical.

R.A. Baker
Ph.D., Ecclesiastical History

This book is the bad Hollywood remake of a classic film. I think previous reviews are split into two different categories - one set reviewing the thoughts and ideas of Epictetus (who deserves 5 stars), the other reviewing sham 'author' Sharon Lebell (who deserves 1 star). The source material being abused here is absolute genius. Sadly it gets butchered by a woman who by her own admission doesn't know Latin and had no idea who Epictetus was until the publisher approached her and asked her to 'write' this book. The translator is never revealed (bad sign), but previous reviews are correct that the actual text has been stretched, paraphrased, and regurgitated into lame self-help-isms. It's a testament to the power of the original work that some of the main the ideas still come through. Forget the terrible remake, go watch the original!

This book was recommemed by a specialist in treating people with attendtion deficit disorder (ADD). The pieces of wisdom are good bits of wisdom but I feel it would have been better if the author could have elaborated. The pieces of wisdom are only one two pages. Some only a paragraph or two. Perhaps given examples or some type of historical context as Robert Greene id in 48 principles of power.

Sirs: In the Amazon provided title for this book, they spelt part of the title wrong, with: 'mannual', rather than the correct 'manual'.

I have read this four or five times, and I have found that it is truly a manual to live by. If this manual replaced the Bible, the New Testament, and the Koran, people would be much more peaceful and contented. It has great common sense advice, and such a simple, humble tone. It reminds me of the Tao Te Ching, but less mystical. Every time I read it I feel better about life. I think anyone would benefit from reading it.

While some reviewers might object to the "updated" terminology of Lebell's adaptation of Epictetus' philosophy, I must say that the reason this edition is so effective is largely because the "abstract", "scholarly", "dry" language that one usually encounters (with conventional translations of Epictetus' philosophy) is here replaced with a pleasing approximation of how Epictetus himself would likely speak TODAY (assuming his native tongue were English).

IMPORTANT NOTE: Though I certainly do esteem my copy of this excellent, conventional-book edition, I must say that the alternative AUDIO edition is infinitely more powerfully effective for ME. Indeed, since discovering the AUDIOBOOK edition (an excellently judicious abridgement of this conventional-book edition) some years ago, I've found myself listening to it over and over and over, and I expect to do so for the rest of my life! I certainly can't say THAT about any other audiobook (with the possible exception of the audio edition of "How to Stop Worrying and Start Living" by Dale Carnegie). If everybody would listen to that audio while commuting to/from work (and/or at bedtime or upon waking), this would likely be a kinder, saner world.

Therefore, IN ADDITION TO (or, initially, instead of) this conventional-book edition, you should absolutely purchase the "audio download" edition of this book so that you can have it as either a conventional compact disc or as MP3 files (for your iPod, MP3 player, computer, etc.). [As of this writing, you can find Amazon's "audio download" edition by first "searching" on the ISBN number of the CASSETTE edition (1574530887) and then clicking on the "Also Available" audio download edition link near the top of the page.] The price for the "audio download" edition is remarkably low; indeed, it may well amount to the greatest "self-help" bargain you'll ever encounter!

Regarding this TEXT edition, be aware that only the latest (2007) edition [ISBN: 9780061286056] includes two RECENTLY WRITTEN essays by author Lebell: "Epi-Who? How a 200-Year-Old Dead White Male Changed My Life" and "Why Would Anyone Want to Be a Stoic?". These helpful and gratifying essays (appended to the reprinted text of the prior, 1995 edition) should prove helpful/entertaining to most readers, especially newcomers to Epictetus' teachings. Oh, btw, the latest edition also features all-new cover art.

Michela Wrong is one of those liberal journalists who blame 99% of Africa's 'problems' on the European colonial regimes and the European and American 'neo-colonial' interventions. Her book does provide a very good glimpse into the doings and crimes of Mobutu and his relatives and cronies, but excuses most of it away by referencing the colonialists who went before. Ditto for his successor Kabila of course, although the focus is mainly on Mobutu.

The United States, the World Bank, and the IMF are blasted as participants in all the corruption and downgoing of Congo/Zaire because they provided countless millions in aid money. The money was given to Mobutu in the hope that it would be used improve the economy and aid development, but of course most of it wound up being slotted into Swiss bank accounts or into the purchase of villas in the Riviera.

If these vast sums had NOT been given, the author would of course have led the pack in condemning the USA, WB, and IMF for not giving the money to help Africa, as if only they had then it would not be in the mess it is. And so on, we know the refrain by now, don't we?

Wrong brings up the Cold War as yet another dire consequence for Congo, it becoming a victim of competing world powers grabbing for its resources and influence over the region. It doesn't occur to her that really it was a tremendous boon, in that it meant that countries like that could soak up billions in handouts from the West and eyes averted from African crimes and despotism. Big chiefs like Mobutu massively exploited the West and could not have done so as deeply as without the Cold War.

I lived in Africa for twelve years and saw several countries go from colonialism to post-colonial darkness under one despotic regime or another. I have run into plenty of Michela Wrongs there, who think they understand Africa but really just can not get past their own biases.

Yes, colonialism in Congo under the Belgians did have its share of abuses. But for most Congolese it was a good thing in that it meant jobs, education, modern agriculture, medicine, order, and the building up of a functional, modern nation. The problem is that the Belgians LEFT - at the demands of wannabe despots and liberal journalists like Wrong of course - and the grasping, bloody hands that took over utterly ruined the place. And of course it has been about the same all across Africa: darkness followed by colonialism as a brief ray of light, and what came after a return to the darkness.

So why did I give this book four stars? Because of the fairly accurate portrait of those post-colonial grasping, bloody hands. There is plenty of detail on how the billions got stolen, how the economic infrastructure was pillaged away to nothing, and how the whole population was returned to about the level of the stone age which is where the Belgians first found them.

Two last notes -

Firstly, Wrong's continual reference to Mr. Kurtz and Conrad's novella 'Heart of Darkness' seems way out of place. Mobutu was no Kurtz, period. Mobutu's head would have been just another adornment on Kurtz's front gate up the river. And Conrad could not have even imagined how horrendous the post-colonial Africa would become.

Secondly, she claims that Stanley was called 'Breaker of Rocks' for his brutality towards the various Congolese tribes he encountered. That is not true. He was far less severe towards the tribes than they were to each other, and the 'breaker of rocks' comes from his construction work of the railway across Congo - the endless rocky areas which he blasted and hacked away, amazing his African laborers along the way.

Overall, I recommend this book, readers should just disregard Wrong's trendy liberal-left biases.

An excellent look at what has brouoght the DRC to where it is today, extremely readable.

Few nations have had as sad a history as Zaire, currently known as the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Michela Wrong, a journalist for the New Statesman, has taken the time to write a book about the Congo's history particularly under Mobutu, and her experiences in the Congo during his kleptocratic rule.

Her stories are well-researched, and it's clear she's talked with many of those who influenced the history of the time. The sterile recounting of Congo's continual deterioriation under Mobutu is quite well done. What I found infuriating about this book is that Wrong never seems to ask why things happened, or were allowed to happen.

When Zaire, for instance, became independent, it boasted all of 17 university graduates in a country the size of Western Europe, and had had the Belgians pour much treasure into its development. Surely the Belgians, who deconialized, realized that the country would be dependent on Western know-how for many years. Why then, did they not leave advisers behind, perhaps advisers with a brief to make the president offers he couldn't refuse, as was the practice in other francophone colonies? One of the cataclysms under Mobutu's rule was his expelling of many non-Zairians, who left their capital behind, but not their connections and understanding of their business. The economy duly crashed. Why did neither the Belgians nor the French nor the Americans dissuade him from a policy that all but destroyed Zaire's prosperity? One reason why the above mentioned powers were loath to antagonize Mobutu were the many services he queitly performed for them during the Cold War. Why does Wrong only allude to them, and not mention them? One could continue in this vein, but I felt as if what could have become a fascinating book focusing on the crunch times when astoundingly disastrous decisions were made, instead focuses on the misery that these ill-begotten decisions wreaked, which is not as nearly interesting.

If you need to need a source for academic work on Zaire under Mobutu, you may enjoy this book, but I wouldn't recommend it as pleasure reading.

`In the Footsteps of Mr Kurtz' is a nice introduction to the intriguing life and times of infamous dictator Mobutu, from his rise to power to his less than glorious downfall. I advise it to anyone who is unfamiliar with Zaire-Congo. Very good reading is her account of the final collapse of the Zairian army. This book was originally conceived as a radio-program on BBC. It is however just that: an introduction. The author is so kind to refer to further reading in the last pages of the book. There the interested reader can find very good resources on the history of the Belgian Congo.


Michela Wrong does suffer from some prejudice towards Belgium and the Belgians not uncommon in the UK. Apart from King Leopold II, the role of the Belgian monarchy and the Belgian governments, especially while supporting the brutal Mobutu dictatorship is hardly present and when mentioned it is downplayed. Not a word on the part that King Baudouin and Prime Minister Gaston Eyskens played in 1959-1960, especially concerning the assassination of Patrice Lumumba. I strongly suggest The Assassination of Lumumba by Belgian journalist Ludo De Witte for a good background on that period.


The author points out that it took an American historian to dig up the facts about King Leopold II's barbarity. While the author is absolutely right in pointing out that Belgium has still not come to terms with its own colonial past, and while King Leopold's Ghost by Adam Hochschild is a must read, it is NOT the first published account of that period. That honour goes to the Belgian former diplomat Jules Marchal. But even so, in 1985 he still had to use the pseudonym of A. M. Delathuy and go to the small leftwing publisher EPO (Education Prolétarienne - Proletarische Opvoeding) to get the first ever book published of a ruthless campaign that would nowadays be labelled as genocide. All big Belgian, French and Dutch publishers flatly refused it. Unfortunately this book is only available in Dutch and French, not in English.


Michela Wrong does give credit to this book, stating that it is only available in French (and Flemish if you can read it) ...Two small remarks here, there is no such thing as a Flemish language. I know that even recently a quality newspaper like The Guardian still claims that `the Flemish Belgians speak Flemish, a language related to Dutch'. The author does not have to take my word for it, she can go check any library and ask for an Flemish-English dictionary, there is no such thing. She can also come check the curriculum in any Flemish school, where she will find that students learn mathematics, geography and `Dutch' at school. While her apparently not so well informed ears may find it odd to hear that the Flemish speak Dutch while not being Dutch, maybe it will help to point out that also the Austrians speak German, that the Brazilians speak Portuguese etc ... Do the Flemish have a different accent than the Dutch? Yes; certainly, but so do Texans, Jamaicans, Australians, yet they all speak English. I also do not understand why Michela Wrong finds it necessary to give a demeaning remark ... if you can read it ... Dutch is the native language of 16 million Dutch and 6 million Flemish, that is more than all Scandinavian languages combined. Another detail that reveals her prejudice towards Belgians and Flemish is that the only Belgian politician she mentions by name is Leo Tindemans who she misspells with a typical `German' double `nn'. Of all Belgian Prime Ministers that ever played a role in Zaire-Congo, he was the least active on Zaire. Every Belgian knows about Tindemans' personal distaste for Mobutu (the feeling was mutual).


A good introduction to Mobutu indeed, a translation into French and Dutch (I can read it!) is more than welcome.


Lode Vanoost (Belgian native Dutch speaker, 7 years old in 1960, no strings attached to Congo), Brussels, 26 November 2006

Anyone who wants to understand the Congo should read two books, Michela Wrong's In The Footsteps of Mr. Kurtz and King Leopold's Ghost: A Story of Greed, Terror, and Heroism in Colonial Africa by Adam Hochschild. I also heartily recommend both books to anyone studying Conrad's Heart of Darkness, which is too seldom seen as an historic account as well as a literary novel. Wrong and Hochschild explain why the last 100 years of bloody tyranny in possibly the most mineral-rich country on earth has laid the groundwork for 100 more.

Hochschild gives us the first half of the century, when King Leopold II of Belgium, a man whose inferiority complex knows no bottom and whose greed no limits, jumps into the feeding frenzy for colonies and comes up gripping the very heart of Africa, the vast area around the Congo River and it's tributaries that would later become the Belgian Congo, then Zaire, and today is the Democratic Republic of Congo. This is also the setting for my novel, Heart of Diamonds: A Novel of Scandal, Love and Death in the Congo. Wrong covers this era also, but in less depth, helpfully referring readers to Hochschild for the full story.

Where she picks up steam, though, is with Joseph Desire Mobutu, better known as Mobutu Sese Seko, who became the archetype African strongman dictator. She paints a remarkably nuanced portrait of the man, exposing not just his brutality but his cunning; his charm as well as his lust for power. Wrong witnessed Mobutu's last days and tells us how he ultimately lost control of the nation he ruled for over thirty years.

Mobutu didn't rise to office on his good looks and winning personality--he was essentially put there by the CIA. He also didn't retain power simply because he was good at exercising it; France, Belgium, and the United States, not to mention the World Bank, kept him there with military support and an endless stream of dollars. The tale of how he played the First World like a violin is fascinating. Mobutu's nationalization of foreign-owned assets and his machinations with the White House sparked several plot elements in Heart of Diamonds: A Novel of Scandal, Love and Death in the Congo.

Wrong gives us a highly readable account of Mobutu's demise. "The Leopard" as he was known, had grown increasingly distracted and detached from his power base. In the last years, he spent most of his time in the Xanadu he constructed in Gbadolite in the middle of the equatorial forest, leaving the country's affairs to a network of cronies and relatives who plundered the nation in his name. The Rwandan genocide of 1994 set the stage for his downfall. Mobutu sided with the Hutus, and when he ordered the Tutsi refugees who had fled into Zaire to leave under pain of death in 1996, Rwanda, Uganda, and Burundi joined forces to drive him from office.

Wrong also explains how Laurent Kabila picked up where Mobutu left off as ruler and manipulating despot. Unfortuantely for the reader, her account was published before Kabila's own assassination in 2001.

Paired with Adam Hochschild's well-researched history, King Leopold's Ghost, Michela Wrong's book gives the reader a better understanding of this deeply troubled nation.

I am writing this review, because it was a humanities class project. I am reading
Matilda Bone, I would give it two stars.

Matilda is an unfortunate orphan who arrives at Blood and Bone Alley. To help a bone setter named Peg. She has never even imagined herself picking up a mop! Now she must help Peg with dirty dishes and bloody bones. Matilda finds herself meeting lots of greedy people!

I would prefer to read a different book, because this book has a lot of little problems. I like one big problem, but that's just my opinion. The story keeps going on and on, and it never has a meaning. It gets better at the end, it actually makes since. Matilda Bone has a lot of details.

I would recommend this book to someone who loves details and gruesome parts in the book. What I mean by gruesome is rotten eels and bloody bones. If you like smelly eels and bloody bones, then you would really like this book. Gruesome things come up in this book a lot!

I read Matilda bone for a class assignment for humanities. The book was about a girl named Matilda that was assigned to be an assistant to a bone setter named peg. She lives on blood and bone alley. When she arrives she doesn't know anything that's going on around her. After a while she gets to know the people and her boss peg. And life goes by easily after that

I gave the book a two and a halve because to me it had lots of detail but also lots of small problems, I prefer to read about one big problem otherwise the book doesn't interest me. I'd probably recommend this book to someone who likes medieval problems and how they solved it then.

I'm writing this as a humanities project. Matilda Bone has a slow start, but then gets better as you go!
It is about a girl named Matilda that is not pleased when she goes to work at Blood & Bone Alley to become assistant for Red Peg the bonesetter. Matilda is a person who can't picture herself doing chores, and bone setting. Matilda thinks no one understands her. Life teaches her through kindness, and friendships, finally Matilda begins to see the world around her!
I would recommend this book to someone who likes very detailed books, or someone who likes lots of little conflicts.

Matilda Bone by Karen Cushman is a book full of compassion and friendship. When Matilda's father Lord'leufuerd goes to London Matilda becomes an assistant for a bone setter. Bone settters are people that can heal injured bones and Peg, Matilda's mistress teaches Matilda lots of new things. She meets new people when her father is gone and while she is with her mistress,Peg. Matilda is a selfish girl and doesnt like to be bossed around. But how long can Matilda take these orders by some bone setter?

This book has thought me a lot about friendship. Is is filled with Friendship during this book. It is very well written too.

Great for our medival unit study. My children enjoyed listening to this book on tape. We were not disappointed at the end of this book. It is very good with details from that period.

I know a lot about history, though I'm no historian. I can say with all honesty I have read actual HISTORY books more interesting than this. This book was mostly facts, with a small amount of description put in. There was no deep character analysis, no beautiful descriptions, and no real theme. It assumes that you'll be so shocked to find out about the naughty things historical figures have been involved in that you don't need and actual good story. In fact, I got more enjoyment from reading Alexander Hamilton, a biography from Ron Chernow, than from reading this.

What follows spoils some of the story, so don't read it if you actually plan on buying it.

The author also asserts the ridiculous (at least in my opinion) belief that Alexander Hamilton FORGED letters to make it look like he was being blackmailed, and was actually engaging in shady financial dealings with JAmes Reynolds. Though I admit to slight bias (I adore Hamilton), this is a claim is unbelievable.

I love history reads, and particularly so when it seems relevant to me in some way. I'm probably related to Thomas Callender, so I doubly expected to be glued to this book for a weekend. Sadly, this book was so dry and devoid of historical value in the first 5-10 pages that I just couldn't keep enough interest to pay attention after that and sent it to another relative, who I hope won't hold that against me too much.

The words we use matter.

That is what this book comes down to and who better to write such a massage then the "On Language" columnist for the The New York Times Magazine.

Usually journalist narcissism about there bloated since of self-worth to the community turns me off but Safire plowed through ass such predigests I held with his ability to bring historical figures into multidimensional focus and craft such a smoothly flowing story that it carries one on with the same invariability as the fixed history it tells.

The truly amazing aspect though is how a novel so grounded in historical research can at once ring so true not only for the revolutionary times it portrays but for our times as well. While Safire's background with the new York Times lends itself to telling a story more about the power of the newspapers I was surprised by just how much the story seemed to portray the new medium of blogs - I actually would find it hard for a reader not to see those parallels with the newspaper editors firing personal attacks back and forth at each other through there printed sheets and responding in a far less restrained way than one would find today.

But above all and as I have said before it is the language that carries this book.

I agree with the review that said you need a background in this time period to follow the book. I have a degree in history, and I still had to read very carefully at the beginning so I wouldn't get lost. It wouldn't hurt to take some notes on the cast of characters as you read because they come and go with rapidity. I also was surprised by a few modern language slips, esp. from Safire. But I love novels that are packed with accurate history, and this novel is indeed that. It would be a great class novel for an American history class.

While this book is carefully -- even elegantly -- written, be aware that your enjoyment of it (or even your ability to follow it) will be seriously impaired if you lack a strong background in the Founding Fathers.

For those who know a good deal about America's early years, about the Constitutional Convention, about Jefferson, Hamilton, Adams, etc., this book will bring their knowledge to life in invigorating and engrossing ways.

For those who only know nearly nothing (or only some broad facts about this time), this book is likely to prove dense and unrewarding.

So study up first. Safire doesn't give you a primer. It's for readers who are already "into" the era.

For many years, I intended to read this novel. Now I have ... and I was swept away by the scope and depth and insight of the "story," one that will repay a reader many times over for the challenge of staying the course. The book succeeds on so many levels, maintaining multiple messages, if you will, and allowing them all to play out. It's about war, indeed, but war in all guises: among people, within families, and the one each of us fights every day, with ourselves, our dreams, and our realities. It's about southern life and values, then and now, about southern history, then and now. It's about memory and storytelling ... and how the two intertwine and confuse one another. The book, simply put, teems with life as we all live it, so full of joy and sadness, reminiscence and regret, soaring dreams and sordid realities -- it contains multitudes. This is as fine a book as I've read in some time; it's that good. Strap yourself in and read it. Just read it, slowly and lovingly, and let the beauty of its imaginative and historic genius work its magic. It will.

This book was in a lot of used paperbacks that I bought on eBay. I decided to read it first because I had seen the movie several years ago, and enjoyed it.

It is a long book, yes. I would have to say, though, that it is one of my favorites. There is not one minute that I spent reading it that I regret. The characters were real to me, the setting so vivid, so imaginable. I could picture it all in my imagination.

I loved Lucy. I was actually sad the day that I finished this book, I felt as though I was putting to rest an old friend, one that I will miss.

Often I wondered how it was possible for a man to write so insightfully about the life of a woman. I felt as though Mr. Gurganus understands a lot more about female life than I would have given most men credit for.

I did not read the book, but watched the mini-series on cable. The segments which amounted to vehicles for the implantation of emotional anti-gun propaganda and feminist philosophy gave me cause to doubt the veracity of the entire work. I prefer to think for myself and make my own conclusions, thank you.

Just started the book but seems very candid, which is what I was looking for.

It's been some years now since I read this book (for the second or third time), but it was one of the most memorable I've ever read, and supercedes classics like "To Kill A Mockingbird", even. It would probably make my Top Ten of all time.

I purchased this book on a whim and I have to admit I did not even read what it was about. Thinking it was a treatise on the war against terror, imagine my surprise when I learned that Rabbi Lapin was addressing the cultural war that America is engaged in. Consequently, it sat in my computer on MP3 format unlistened to for several months.

It is an outstanding and well-reasoned book. Rabbi Lapin makes his points without belittling his opponents. His basic thesis is simple: The liberal left is out to de-Christianize the United States by removing any semblance of religion from the public life. Lapin argues that it is the belief in God and a strong moral sense of right and wrong that made this country great. Imagine my surprise when he argued that America was founded as a Christian nation. No, one does not have to believe in Christ to be a citizen, but that the traditional moral beliefs as stated in both the Old and New Testaments provide the moral foundation of right and wrong.

In this war, conservative Jews, evangelical Christians and conservative Catholics have much more in common that binds them together than differences that separate them. Rather than fearing conservative evangelicals, conservative Jews ought to see them as allies and friends. I have long argued with my Jewish friends that their real enemies are not conservative Christians, but liberal secularist. If there is going to be persecution of American Jews, it will not come from the religious right but liberal left. For instance, it is the conservative Christians who support Israel, whereas secular leftists have more sympathetic toward Moslem extremist in the name of cultural diversity.

His analysis of why Jews are so liberal was both insightful and fascinating. I have always wondered why American Jews have this propensity for liberalism, especially in light of the lefts sympathetic leanings toward Islamic extremists. I will take one issue with Rabbi Lapin. When one speaks of a cultural war, the object of war is to kill and defeat your enemy. When we come to the realm of ideas, I prefer to persuade people to my beliefs than to make war on them.

This book is one of the best books about the culture wars that I have read. I have recommended it to so many people. Rabbi Lapin is an observant Jew who explains why, as Jews, we should be supportive of the Evangelical Christian political viewpoint rather than fear it as Jews have done (I believe) for years. He argues that it's not Jews that Christians dislike (which many Jews believe (falsely). . . I can personally attest to this), but that it's liberals they dislike. . . with reason.

Rabbi Lapin explains that Jews and Christians share a Judeo-Christian value system which is threatened by liberal secularism. And, considering his convincing arguments and examples, one can only agree with this conclusion after reading this interesting and well-written book.

Jews and Christians raise their families in much the same way. Although our theologies differ, our value system is almost identical. Personally, I think, as Jews, we'd be better served if we could honestly recognize who our real friends are. Rabbi Daniel Lapin makes it perfectly clear who they are and who our real enemies are. Unfortunately, I think most Jews-- including my own relatives-- don't understand the truth of this yet.

I'd like to see this book rereleased and updated to include the last two elections and 9-11.

I almost totally disagree with Rabbi Lapin when it comes to politics, but this was an interesting book to see the perspective and arguments of a conservative Jew. I find the overall premise, that we need to either stick with Christianity as a basis for our laws or everything will go to hell, to be a false one. This war he has envisioned between good and evil, right-wing and left-wing (left-wing being evil) only exists in the minds of the far right. Such people can't understand what separation of church and state means, and liberalism to them is an evil ideology. I'm liberal but I wouldn't say conservatives are evil, I would just say I disagree with them. See the difference?

This book is mostly void of intellectual prowess although it is quite effective and leveling mostly empty, fiery claims against liberal America. The book makes sweeping generalizations, lifts things out of there proper contexts and uses really hostile language to critique the "other side" which is basically everyone who is not a right-wing religious zealot either Jewish or Christian. ALthough it is not a poorly written book, and occasionally makes a decent point, it is nothing earth-shattering and there are definately better books about the ills of America, reading this whole thing is wasting time.

Though a refreshingly well-executed effort in light of some truly unreadable drivel that passes for intellectual discourse these days, the Rabbi's effort is, alas, in vain. The "War of Ideas" is pretty much over, at least as far as faith is concerned, and the faithless have won.

While it is admirable for the more articulate spokesmen for traditional religion to recall the founding of this country as an indication that America was not started as a secular nation, after reading enough such commentary one is eventually left with the burning question: if religion is, in fact, the backbone of a free society, why bother with the separation of Church and State?

What the Rabbi, and other conservative thinkers conveniently forget, is that while the US was founded by (and for) men who at least nominally practiced some formal faith, these were not, as the Rabbi would have us believe, religious fundamentalists, or zealots. The Founding Fathers were considerably more ambivalent about their sectarian faith (though not the formalities of such) than is the Rabbi, or for that matter folks like Pat Robertson. The genius of their effort was not in founding a society based on man's shared servitude to God, but rather one based on man's essential right to liberty, which is absolutely necessary for man to pursue his own individual goals by his own means, as an end onto himself, provided that his actions do not infringe on the rights of the others to do the same. Note that service to God does not require man to be free, since even an enslaved man can be made to worship a deity, just as he can, and has throughout history been, made to serve the wishes of the various pagan, religious, and collectivist thugs which societies that were NOT based on liberty and individual rights seem to have had no trouble producing in great abundance.

All in all, as we stand and contemplate our future in the early years of the new millennium surrounded by the various monumental achievements of mankind, we should be reminded that the greatest threat to that future is posed not by the ever-present secular evil, but by the most fundamental and, some could argue, the most internally consistent manifestation of faith and mysticism -- radical Islam. We will not be able to win the ideological war with these Islamists if our only philosophical argument remains: "our God can beat up your God".

For a healthy antidote to Rabbi's book check out the recent "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris.