Pennsylvania Books

Leave it to Charlie to find even more Pennsylvania streams! He even includes notable waters in NJ and Ny. This book gives you the opportunity to fish streams that don't get the pressure of some of the more famous waters. The author's cover waters large and small. The book is a bargain, and at retail price equates to 39 cents per stream! Try to find a guide for that.

One of the most interesting books I've read. It has been great for someone that has "cabin fever" this winter. I read about a different stream every night before bedtime. Great reviews on Pocono, Manada, and McMichael Creeks! J. Edwards

I read this book for a graduate Mill seminar in Philosophy. Recommended reading for anyone interested in education, philosophy, political science, and history.

John Stuart Mill, 1806-73, worked for the East India Co. helped run Colonial India from England. Minister of Parliament 1865-68 he served one term.

In John Stuart Mill's autobiography, he tells readers how he benefited and suffered from having one of the most unique educational experiences known to humankind. His father, James Mill, was personally involved in the education of John and his other siblings John was a brilliant student who read Greek by the age of three and Latin at eight years old. By the time he matured to adulthood, he was extremely well read. Thus, John received an academically rigorous education at home; however, it was devoid of any interaction and social contact with other children his own age. In adulthood, he developed very strong views about the advantages that universal education would have on improving people's characters, which would lead to fostering social change for the better. In addition, he held very strong beliefs on reforming university curriculum to improve Britain's intellectual class. Mill summarized many of his ideas on education in 1867 after accepting the position as Rector of the University of St. Andrews. In his Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St. Andrews, one of the points that he made in his speech was the responsibility that universities had in building their student's characters. In large measure, the type of curriculum the university taught to its students would in part shape one's character. More importantly, the proper university curriculum would ultimately provide student's with the tools necessary to continue to learn throughout their lives, critically analyze, and if necessary become agents for change in society. He thought that this goal was best served in two ways. First, he believed immersing students in Western civilization's classical works especially the great works of the Greeks and Romans was an important foundation of knowledge. Secondly, he also believed that reading contemporary works of literature was of paramount importance to develop the human character.

As an intellectual himself, Mill was especially interested in the development of the character of gifted people who had the ability to develop a higher intellect than most of their peers. Mill's writings are replete with advice as to what knowledge he thought was most worth attaining to develop one's character and intellect. Looking at what Mill wrote regarding the proper kind of education the intellectually gifted should receive in a university, is where one can then start to ascertain what side he would support in the canon vs. multicultural debate. Although I will use key passages from his writings to illuminate why Mill would ultimately champion the supporters of an increased multicultural curriculum for universities, I also find there is evidence in his writings that he would insist that student's posses a knowledge base in the canon. As an example, in his essay titled Civilization in 1836, which was written when he was 30 years old, one finds Mill's early and life long penchant for studying the classics of ancient Greece and Rome. "Such is the principle of all academical instruction which aims at forming great minds. Ancient literature would fill a large place in such a course of instruction; because it brings before us the thoughts and actions of many great minds."

I find the influence that the classic Greek cultural had on Mill is most illuminating. Williams found that Mill's experience with the Greeks was largely comprised of his reviews he wrote for his friend, George Grote; on his multi-volume work, Grote's History of Greece, as well as Mill's own translations of several of Plato's dialogues. To say that Mill was enamored with the classical Greeks would be a gross understatement. In a review of Grote's work Mill penned the following about the Greeks. "They were the most remarkable people ever to have existed: in historical literature, oratory, poetry, sculpture, architecture, mathematics, physics, politics, and philosophy they made the indispensable first steps, originating speculation and freedom of thought." Mill's interest in the Greeks was in primarily what they had to contribute to present society in the study of politics and philosophy. He thought the Greeks in these two areas had the most influence both on Western civilization as a whole, and was very useful in character formation in educating both the masses and the intelligentsia. In his review of Grote's works, Mill wrote that, in essence, the Athenian democratic model "afforded the mental tranquility which is also one of the conditions of high intellectual or imaginative achievement." Thus, the Athenian society based on liberty would become the historical foundation that Mill would use to defend his own political as well as philosophical views for the improvement of society.

Some 31 years after writing his essay Civilization, Mill's theories for properly educating citizens and the proper makeup of a university curriculum were brilliantly articulated in his Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St. Andrews in 1867. In this speech, he decried the idea of what universities had become. "Universities are not intended to teach the knowledge required to fit men for some special mode of gaining their livelihood. Their object is not to make skilful lawyers, or physicians, or engineers, but capable and cultivated human beings." He understood that only people with a well grounded education in liberal arts could become the intellectual nucleus that was ultimately necessary to lead and improve society.

Mill's book On Liberty makes his most passionate argument for fostering a pluralistic society. In essence, he articulated the argument that people needed to have more freedom than they had to develop their characters. Mill's concern was that if a majority of people in society were invested with unlimited power they could tyrannize the minority. Although On Liberty is a major treatise of political philosophy, it is also recognized more generally as a work of social philosophy--more so than any other work by Mill. It is not just about what kind of government we should have and how it should behave, but also more importantly, it is about what kind of society we should have and how we aught to live together.

Mill makes a cogent argument in chapter two of On Liberty that really gets to the essence of his arguments. In the chapter, he questions whether society should censor new doctrines simply because they do not conform to its current norms or beliefs. He says that essentially there are three things that may be true of new doctrines when they are proposed. 1) The doctrine might be true; 2) it might be false; and 3) it might be partially true. Mill provides a variety of reasons why the censorship of new doctrines is a bad idea. He believed that most doctrines contain only partial truths but not the whole truth. As an example, when he examined the history of religion he found this to be the case. Although he saw most laudable teachings in Christianity he thought that Judaism and the Koran also had laudable teachings for humankind that were not found in the New Testament. Thus, for the betterment of humankind he believed the best teachings of all three religions should be combined. I believe Mill's real genius as an intellectual was depicted by his impressive ability to find the little kernels of truth in other people's doctrines and synthesize them. Mill postulated that there were few original thinkers in history, and that most ideas that members of society adopt are really the best bits and pieces of a larger doctrine.

I read this book for a graduate Mill seminar in Philosophy. Recommended reading for anyone interested in education, philosophy, political science, and history.

John Stuart Mill, 1806-73, worked for the East India Co. helped run Colonial India from England. Minister of Parliament 1865-68 he served one term.

In John Stuart Mill's autobiography, he tells readers how he benefited and suffered from having one of the most unique educational experiences known to humankind. His father, James Mill, was personally involved in the education of John and his other siblings John was a brilliant student who read Greek by the age of three and Latin at eight years old. By the time he matured to adulthood, he was extremely well read. Thus, John received an academically rigorous education at home; however, it was devoid of any interaction and social contact with other children his own age. In adulthood, he developed very strong views about the advantages that universal education would have on improving people's characters, which would lead to fostering social change for the better. In addition, he held very strong beliefs on reforming university curriculum to improve Britain's intellectual class. Mill summarized many of his ideas on education in 1867 after accepting the position as Rector of the University of St. Andrews. In his Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St. Andrews, one of the points that he made in his speech was the responsibility that universities had in building their student's characters. In large measure, the type of curriculum the university taught to its students would in part shape one's character. More importantly, the proper university curriculum would ultimately provide student's with the tools necessary to continue to learn throughout their lives, critically analyze, and if necessary become agents for change in society. He thought that this goal was best served in two ways. First, he believed immersing students in Western civilization's classical works especially the great works of the Greeks and Romans was an important foundation of knowledge. Secondly, he also believed that reading contemporary works of literature was of paramount importance to develop the human character.

As an intellectual himself, Mill was especially interested in the development of the character of gifted people who had the ability to develop a higher intellect than most of their peers. Mill's writings are replete with advice as to what knowledge he thought was most worth attaining to develop one's character and intellect. Looking at what Mill wrote regarding the proper kind of education the intellectually gifted should receive in a university, is where one can then start to ascertain what side he would support in the canon vs. multicultural debate. Although I will use key passages from his writings to illuminate why Mill would ultimately champion the supporters of an increased multicultural curriculum for universities, I also find there is evidence in his writings that he would insist that student's posses a knowledge base in the canon. As an example, in his essay titled Civilization in 1836, which was written when he was 30 years old, one finds Mill's early and life long penchant for studying the classics of ancient Greece and Rome. "Such is the principle of all academical instruction which aims at forming great minds. Ancient literature would fill a large place in such a course of instruction; because it brings before us the thoughts and actions of many great minds."

I find the influence that the classic Greek cultural had on Mill is most illuminating. Williams found that Mill's experience with the Greeks was largely comprised of his reviews he wrote for his friend, George Grote; on his multi-volume work, Grote's History of Greece, as well as Mill's own translations of several of Plato's dialogues. To say that Mill was enamored with the classical Greeks would be a gross understatement. In a review of Grote's work Mill penned the following about the Greeks. "They were the most remarkable people ever to have existed: in historical literature, oratory, poetry, sculpture, architecture, mathematics, physics, politics, and philosophy they made the indispensable first steps, originating speculation and freedom of thought." Mill's interest in the Greeks was in primarily what they had to contribute to present society in the study of politics and philosophy. He thought the Greeks in these two areas had the most influence both on Western civilization as a whole, and was very useful in character formation in educating both the masses and the intelligentsia. In his review of Grote's works, Mill wrote that, in essence, the Athenian democratic model "afforded the mental tranquility which is also one of the conditions of high intellectual or imaginative achievement." Thus, the Athenian society based on liberty would become the historical foundation that Mill would use to defend his own political as well as philosophical views for the improvement of society.

Some 31 years after writing his essay Civilization, Mill's theories for properly educating citizens and the proper makeup of a university curriculum were brilliantly articulated in his Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St. Andrews in 1867. In this speech, he decried the idea of what universities had become. "Universities are not intended to teach the knowledge required to fit men for some special mode of gaining their livelihood. Their object is not to make skilful lawyers, or physicians, or engineers, but capable and cultivated human beings." He understood that only people with a well grounded education in liberal arts could become the intellectual nucleus that was ultimately necessary to lead and improve society.

Mill's book On Liberty makes his most passionate argument for fostering a pluralistic society. In essence, he articulated the argument that people needed to have more freedom than they had to develop their characters. Mill's concern was that if a majority of people in society were invested with unlimited power they could tyrannize the minority. Although On Liberty is a major treatise of political philosophy, it is also recognized more generally as a work of social philosophy--more so than any other work by Mill. It is not just about what kind of government we should have and how it should behave, but also more importantly, it is about what kind of society we should have and how we aught to live together.

Mill makes a cogent argument in chapter two of On Liberty that really gets to the essence of his arguments. In the chapter, he questions whether society should censor new doctrines simply because they do not conform to its current norms or beliefs. He says that essentially there are three things that may be true of new doctrines when they are proposed. 1) The doctrine might be true; 2) it might be false; and 3) it might be partially true. Mill provides a variety of reasons why the censorship of new doctrines is a bad idea. He believed that most doctrines contain only partial truths but not the whole truth. As an example, when he examined the history of religion he found this to be the case. Although he saw most laudable teachings in Christianity he thought that Judaism and the Koran also had laudable teachings for humankind that were not found in the New Testament. Thus, for the betterment of humankind he believed the best teachings of all three religions should be combined. I believe Mill's real genius as an intellectual was depicted by his impressive ability to find the little kernels of truth in other people's doctrines and synthesize them. Mill postulated that there were few original thinkers in history, and that most ideas that members of society adopt are really the best bits and pieces of a larger doctrine.

I read this book for a graduate Mill seminar in Philosophy. Recommended reading for anyone interested in education, philosophy, political science, and history.

John Stuart Mill, 1806-73, worked for the East India Co. helped run Colonial India from England. Minister of Parliament 1865-68 he served one term.

In John Stuart Mill's autobiography, he tells readers how he benefited and suffered from having one of the most unique educational experiences known to humankind. His father, James Mill, was personally involved in the education of John and his other siblings John was a brilliant student who read Greek by the age of three and Latin at eight years old. By the time he matured to adulthood, he was extremely well read. Thus, John received an academically rigorous education at home; however, it was devoid of any interaction and social contact with other children his own age. In adulthood, he developed very strong views about the advantages that universal education would have on improving people's characters, which would lead to fostering social change for the better. In addition, he held very strong beliefs on reforming university curriculum to improve Britain's intellectual class. Mill summarized many of his ideas on education in 1867 after accepting the position as Rector of the University of St. Andrews. In his Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St. Andrews, one of the points that he made in his speech was the responsibility that universities had in building their student's characters. In large measure, the type of curriculum the university taught to its students would in part shape one's character. More importantly, the proper university curriculum would ultimately provide student's with the tools necessary to continue to learn throughout their lives, critically analyze, and if necessary become agents for change in society. He thought that this goal was best served in two ways. First, he believed immersing students in Western civilization's classical works especially the great works of the Greeks and Romans was an important foundation of knowledge. Secondly, he also believed that reading contemporary works of literature was of paramount importance to develop the human character.

As an intellectual himself, Mill was especially interested in the development of the character of gifted people who had the ability to develop a higher intellect than most of their peers. Mill's writings are replete with advice as to what knowledge he thought was most worth attaining to develop one's character and intellect. Looking at what Mill wrote regarding the proper kind of education the intellectually gifted should receive in a university, is where one can then start to ascertain what side he would support in the canon vs. multicultural debate. Although I will use key passages from his writings to illuminate why Mill would ultimately champion the supporters of an increased multicultural curriculum for universities, I also find there is evidence in his writings that he would insist that student's posses a knowledge base in the canon. As an example, in his essay titled Civilization in 1836, which was written when he was 30 years old, one finds Mill's early and life long penchant for studying the classics of ancient Greece and Rome. "Such is the principle of all academical instruction which aims at forming great minds. Ancient literature would fill a large place in such a course of instruction; because it brings before us the thoughts and actions of many great minds."

I find the influence that the classic Greek cultural had on Mill is most illuminating. Williams found that Mill's experience with the Greeks was largely comprised of his reviews he wrote for his friend, George Grote; on his multi-volume work, Grote's History of Greece, as well as Mill's own translations of several of Plato's dialogues. To say that Mill was enamored with the classical Greeks would be a gross understatement. In a review of Grote's work Mill penned the following about the Greeks. "They were the most remarkable people ever to have existed: in historical literature, oratory, poetry, sculpture, architecture, mathematics, physics, politics, and philosophy they made the indispensable first steps, originating speculation and freedom of thought." Mill's interest in the Greeks was in primarily what they had to contribute to present society in the study of politics and philosophy. He thought the Greeks in these two areas had the most influence both on Western civilization as a whole, and was very useful in character formation in educating both the masses and the intelligentsia. In his review of Grote's works, Mill wrote that, in essence, the Athenian democratic model "afforded the mental tranquility which is also one of the conditions of high intellectual or imaginative achievement." Thus, the Athenian society based on liberty would become the historical foundation that Mill would use to defend his own political as well as philosophical views for the improvement of society.

Some 31 years after writing his essay Civilization, Mill's theories for properly educating citizens and the proper makeup of a university curriculum were brilliantly articulated in his Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St. Andrews in 1867. In this speech, he decried the idea of what universities had become. "Universities are not intended to teach the knowledge required to fit men for some special mode of gaining their livelihood. Their object is not to make skilful lawyers, or physicians, or engineers, but capable and cultivated human beings." He understood that only people with a well grounded education in liberal arts could become the intellectual nucleus that was ultimately necessary to lead and improve society.

Mill's book On Liberty makes his most passionate argument for fostering a pluralistic society. In essence, he articulated the argument that people needed to have more freedom than they had to develop their characters. Mill's concern was that if a majority of people in society were invested with unlimited power they could tyrannize the minority. Although On Liberty is a major treatise of political philosophy, it is also recognized more generally as a work of social philosophy--more so than any other work by Mill. It is not just about what kind of government we should have and how it should behave, but also more importantly, it is about what kind of society we should have and how we aught to live together.

Mill makes a cogent argument in chapter two of On Liberty that really gets to the essence of his arguments. In the chapter, he questions whether society should censor new doctrines simply because they do not conform to its current norms or beliefs. He says that essentially there are three things that may be true of new doctrines when they are proposed. 1) The doctrine might be true; 2) it might be false; and 3) it might be partially true. Mill provides a variety of reasons why the censorship of new doctrines is a bad idea. He believed that most doctrines contain only partial truths but not the whole truth. As an example, when he examined the history of religion he found this to be the case. Although he saw most laudable teachings in Christianity he thought that Judaism and the Koran also had laudable teachings for humankind that were not found in the New Testament. Thus, for the betterment of humankind he believed the best teachings of all three religions should be combined. I believe Mill's real genius as an intellectual was depicted by his impressive ability to find the little kernels of truth in other people's doctrines and synthesize them. Mill postulated that there were few original thinkers in history, and that most ideas that members of society adopt are really the best bits and pieces of a larger doctrine.

I read this book for a graduate Mill seminar in Philosophy. Recommended reading for anyone interested in education, philosophy, political science, and history.

John Stuart Mill, 1806-73, worked for the East India Co. helped run Colonial India from England. Minister of Parliament 1865-68 he served one term.

In John Stuart Mill's autobiography, he tells readers how he benefited and suffered from having one of the most unique educational experiences known to humankind. His father, James Mill, was personally involved in the education of John and his other siblings John was a brilliant student who read Greek by the age of three and Latin at eight years old. By the time he matured to adulthood, he was extremely well read. Thus, John received an academically rigorous education at home; however, it was devoid of any interaction and social contact with other children his own age. In adulthood, he developed very strong views about the advantages that universal education would have on improving people's characters, which would lead to fostering social change for the better. In addition, he held very strong beliefs on reforming university curriculum to improve Britain's intellectual class. Mill summarized many of his ideas on education in 1867 after accepting the position as Rector of the University of St. Andrews. In his Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St. Andrews, one of the points that he made in his speech was the responsibility that universities had in building their student's characters. In large measure, the type of curriculum the university taught to its students would in part shape one's character. More importantly, the proper university curriculum would ultimately provide student's with the tools necessary to continue to learn throughout their lives, critically analyze, and if necessary become agents for change in society. He thought that this goal was best served in two ways. First, he believed immersing students in Western civilization's classical works especially the great works of the Greeks and Romans was an important foundation of knowledge. Secondly, he also believed that reading contemporary works of literature was of paramount importance to develop the human character.

As an intellectual himself, Mill was especially interested in the development of the character of gifted people who had the ability to develop a higher intellect than most of their peers. Mill's writings are replete with advice as to what knowledge he thought was most worth attaining to develop one's character and intellect. Looking at what Mill wrote regarding the proper kind of education the intellectually gifted should receive in a university, is where one can then start to ascertain what side he would support in the canon vs. multicultural debate. Although I will use key passages from his writings to illuminate why Mill would ultimately champion the supporters of an increased multicultural curriculum for universities, I also find there is evidence in his writings that he would insist that student's posses a knowledge base in the canon. As an example, in his essay titled Civilization in 1836, which was written when he was 30 years old, one finds Mill's early and life long penchant for studying the classics of ancient Greece and Rome. "Such is the principle of all academical instruction which aims at forming great minds. Ancient literature would fill a large place in such a course of instruction; because it brings before us the thoughts and actions of many great minds."

I find the influence that the classic Greek cultural had on Mill is most illuminating. Williams found that Mill's experience with the Greeks was largely comprised of his reviews he wrote for his friend, George Grote; on his multi-volume work, Grote's History of Greece, as well as Mill's own translations of several of Plato's dialogues. To say that Mill was enamored with the classical Greeks would be a gross understatement. In a review of Grote's work Mill penned the following about the Greeks. "They were the most remarkable people ever to have existed: in historical literature, oratory, poetry, sculpture, architecture, mathematics, physics, politics, and philosophy they made the indispensable first steps, originating speculation and freedom of thought." Mill's interest in the Greeks was in primarily what they had to contribute to present society in the study of politics and philosophy. He thought the Greeks in these two areas had the most influence both on Western civilization as a whole, and was very useful in character formation in educating both the masses and the intelligentsia. In his review of Grote's works, Mill wrote that, in essence, the Athenian democratic model "afforded the mental tranquility which is also one of the conditions of high intellectual or imaginative achievement." Thus, the Athenian society based on liberty would become the historical foundation that Mill would use to defend his own political as well as philosophical views for the improvement of society.

Some 31 years after writing his essay Civilization, Mill's theories for properly educating citizens and the proper makeup of a university curriculum were brilliantly articulated in his Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St. Andrews in 1867. In this speech, he decried the idea of what universities had become. "Universities are not intended to teach the knowledge required to fit men for some special mode of gaining their livelihood. Their object is not to make skilful lawyers, or physicians, or engineers, but capable and cultivated human beings." He understood that only people with a well grounded education in liberal arts could become the intellectual nucleus that was ultimately necessary to lead and improve society.

Mill's book On Liberty makes his most passionate argument for fostering a pluralistic society. In essence, he articulated the argument that people needed to have more freedom than they had to develop their characters. Mill's concern was that if a majority of people in society were invested with unlimited power they could tyrannize the minority. Although On Liberty is a major treatise of political philosophy, it is also recognized more generally as a work of social philosophy--more so than any other work by Mill. It is not just about what kind of government we should have and how it should behave, but also more importantly, it is about what kind of society we should have and how we aught to live together.

Mill makes a cogent argument in chapter two of On Liberty that really gets to the essence of his arguments. In the chapter, he questions whether society should censor new doctrines simply because they do not conform to its current norms or beliefs. He says that essentially there are three things that may be true of new doctrines when they are proposed. 1) The doctrine might be true; 2) it might be false; and 3) it might be partially true. Mill provides a variety of reasons why the censorship of new doctrines is a bad idea. He believed that most doctrines contain only partial truths but not the whole truth. As an example, when he examined the history of religion he found this to be the case. Although he saw most laudable teachings in Christianity he thought that Judaism and the Koran also had laudable teachings for humankind that were not found in the New Testament. Thus, for the betterment of humankind he believed the best teachings of all three religions should be combined. I believe Mill's real genius as an intellectual was depicted by his impressive ability to find the little kernels of truth in other people's doctrines and synthesize them. Mill postulated that there were few original thinkers in history, and that most ideas that members of society adopt are really the best bits and pieces of a larger doctrine.

this book on mongolia, is worth it..it takes the reader on a trip to one of the most beautiful countries around...there are lots of detailed information on the culture, people, and lots more..it will give you a education..pick this one up

Modern Mongolia: Reclaiming Genghis Khan is a lovely book, in four parts,with lots of color pictures. The first part called, 'My Mongolia', tells about Mongolia, the people, places and their history up to the 1900s. The second part, titled 'The Twentieth Century: From Domination to Democracy', tells the story of Mongolia under the China and, later, Russia's control. The third chapter is called 'Deel, Ger and Altar: Continuity and Charge in Mongolian Material Culture' which shows us the changes in what the people used, lived in and wore (sometimes based on what they had and sometimes based on what they were ALLOWED to have). The last part is called 'Genghis Khan, Father of Mongolian Democracy' and shows that, while Mongolians did not have Democracy under Khan, they did have many democratic principles even before Genghis Khan showed up. Under the Khan many of this ideas (rule by law, equality of citizens, participatory government and human rights) were made more powerful by the fact that he united them and made them independent from outside powers. Genghis Khan is a Founding Father ANY nation could be proud of. AT least he had all his teeth and didn't wear a white wig!
The book itself was written by four authors who used a mixture of fact and first person accounts to make a book that you can tell they all enjoyed making. The only thing missing is a copy of the Mongolian constitution. But I did like the beginning of the preamble which they showed in the book:

"We the people of Mongolia...." Always a good start!

"Mouring Glory" is certainly one of my favorite historical accounts of the French Revolution because it reaches beyond the conventional interpretations of this frightening (but fascinating) period of history. Huet gives the reader an informative analysis of the Revolutionary ideology of the sublime, and an incredibly well researched look into how and why the Revolution's idealistic leaders are portrayed as they are. The author gives insight into the Revolutionary will, and how it has been dramatized and incorrectly interpreted in an effort to remember the Revolution and its disturbing but hauntingly mesmerizing effects.

Marie-Helene Huet's collection of essays is a thought-provoking and fascinating account of the ways in which the past two centuries have dealt with one of the most controversial and multi-faceting events of all time; the French Revolution. Combatting Furet's bold "La Revolution est finie," Huet's work examines various aspects of the revolutionary myth, a myth that continues to influence popular culture to the present day. From a brilliant discussion of the meaning of the sublime in the late 18th century to the "feminization" of Robespierre and other Terrorists in historical accounts in order to embody the Chaotic as Feminine, Huet not only synthesizing previous studies of the Revolution but, most importantly, tells us how the perception of the Revolution always reflects upon the culture that created that perception. This is a fantastic combination of comparative mythology and history which should be read not only by those interested in the French Revolution but by anyone who wants to learn how society treats its dead and how that mirrors itself.

Yes, this is a history book, but it's so much more than that. Don Fitzkee writes with a style that makes the bare facts INTERESTING. While all the pertinent facts are contained here in detail, this is written by one who is obviously a great storyteller.

Since "oral tradition" plays such a huge part in the history of religion in America as well as the current climate of most congregations not only in the Church of the Brethren, but in all other denominations as well, this book is a jewel.

Every member of the Church of the Brethren should read it for sure, but those of other faith traditions will find it interesting and learn a great deal from the author's ability to tell the tale in such a way as well!

Part of the message here is: Aren't we swell for recognizing the error of our ways so soon? But more than that, it's about how we can hurt one another along the way if we are not very careful and considerate and PRAYERFUL. Fitzkee doesn't take sides, but simply and beautifully tells the story of what happened so that we can all learn and learn well.

This well-researched and well-written book was a pleasant surprise for me. I was raised in the Church of the Brethren, but left it over 40 years ago. Now in reading this, I'm understanding and appreciating my heritage. The story of the Brethren, and the enormous changes they made in 100 years...the struggle to remain separate from the "world", yet to witness to the world...the questions of dress; of biblical interpretations; of love feasts and baptisms and church architecture...are well discussed and very interesting. I imagine all denominations have had to struggle with similar questions. I think this book would be enjoyed by anyone who is interested in Protestant church history. It is a MUST for all Church of the Brethren members!

The Murderer by Felice Holman is a very fascinating book. It takes place during the Great Depression in a small town called Ashlymine, Pennsylvania. The Murderer is about a thirteen year old boy named Hershel Marks, or Hershy. Hershy is subject to racial prejudice because of his Jewish religion. The Polish boys call Hershy and his friends degrading names such as "Christ Killer" and "Zydek." In retaliation to this, Hershy and his friends throw rocks from a rooftop down at the Polish boys. The Murderer is a good book for quiet afternoon reading; it is a real page-turner. There were many exciting and funny parts in this novel such as when Hershy uses his "fish act" to make a "hypnotized" girl in a window laugh just to receive a free night's stay at the hotel. But more importantly, the historical content in this book is authentic. Felice Homan often times refers to Adolf Hitler's rise in power and the effect of this. Also, an overriding theme in this book is the effect that the Great Depression has on Hershy and his family. In response to the Great Depression, the Marks family has to make many adjustments, such as saving more things and being more conservative. All in all, The Murderer by Felice Holman is a good book because of its readibilty and historical content.

The Murderer by Felice Holman is a good representation of the question of what is the truth and how do you know it. This is because of the racial tension between the Poles and the Jews. Although the Poles call the Jewish boys "Christ killers," Hershy doesn't believe that this is true, so he decides to find the truth. The quest becomes a subplot to this book. Hershy decides to ask his family for the answer to the question of if his religion really did kill Christ. His family gives him a vague answer which isn't good enough for him. He seeks out to find Rabbi Gold to find the answer. Hershy asks the Rabbi, "Did we really kill Christ like the kids say?" (Holman 92). The Rabbi's response is how and that "crucifixion was not a Jewish way of execution" (Holman 93). Hershy is satisfied with this answer and his guilt is alleviated. Clearly, this example shows how Felice Holman related her book to the question of what is the truth and how you know it.

Felice Holman has done it again. This wonder full novel is about Hershey Marks, a young boy trying to find where he fits in, and yet living in Pennsylvania coal country. This wonderful novella is a great read. I also highly recommend Slake's Limbo, by Felice Holman

A well thought out and researched work on the intent of the constiutional framers concerning religion and state. We hear so much nonsense these days from ACLU and others which would make one think our country has just recently invented this need to let religion coexist without government constraint and interference. These jurists have well researched and well presented the case for contemporary jurisprudence to return to its founding roots concerning the separation and establishment clauses. Particulary ringing in my reading will be this quote: "The Constitution, the nation's fundamental law, cannot be legimately be construed to afford redress to every citizen who takes offense at public expressions, whether religious or secular in content. Although the establishment clause forbids the state from sponsoring religiously coercive symbols and practices, it does not require the state to excise public symbols and practices merely because they may be offensive to some."

Charles Emmerich and Arlin Adams use an unbiased approach to document the original goals of our founding fathers: A Nation that can only function properly as a righteous one. The book is a must read for anyone interested in First Amendment Law or anyone who needs a fresh focus on the rights we have as Americans.

The landscape of Pennsylvania has endured such intensive logging, mining, and urbanization over the years that it's a wonder any wild places still exist within its borders. But they do, and Charles Fergus has hiked in all 61 of them. The natural areas he's talking about here are located in state forests and have few recreational amenities, so they're open only to foot traffic. Habitats range from the tidal waters around Little Tinicum Island in the Delaware River to the forested crest and tower at the top of Mount Davis in Somerset County, the highest point in the Commonwealth. Many of these areas gained governmental protection within our lifetime, and I'm sure other natives will learn about sites they never heard of before. Basic road atlases don't usually acknowledge these places. Fergus provides detailed directions for access, writes about the uniqueness of each site, and recommends the best seasons for visits. His commentary is accompanied by black and white photos and may include smatterings of geology, history, anthropology, botany, and zoology. Wildlife ranges from bears and bobcats to salamanders and the tiny critters they feast on. There are bird migration routes, sites for butterfly aficionados, many tall trees and rare plants. A path falls onto land where chips of indigenous tools can still be found, and another turns onto a trail made more recently by an illegal all-terrain vehicle. A map, list of resources, and list of forestry addresses contribute to the usefulness of this guide. Scanning just a few pages will have you reaching for your boots and daypack in no time.

This is a very enjoyable and informative guide to the 61 natural areas in Pennsylvania, which are usually far from the beaten path of the cities, major highways, and even well-known hiking trails. Fergus spent a whole year personally exploring every one of these areas, and proves it with his first-hand descriptions. Therefore this book is based on real experience, and was not written by someone who has never been to the places they're writing about (such as the error-prone Longstreet Highroad Guide to the Pennsylvania Mountains, which I can't totally recommend). As an extensive hiker in PA myself, I've been to some of these natural areas and can attest to Fergus' accuracy. He focuses on the flora, fauna, and topography of these natural areas, and tips on how to get to the more remote ones that may not even be accessible by trail, all in lively prose that walks the fine line between poetic and overly sentimental. Fergus tends to avoid the bad news on some of these areas, especially pollution, which would make the chapters on Little Tinicum Island (near Philly) and Sheets Island Archipelago (almost within sight of Three Mile Island) more informative; plus the complete absence of maps is a problem for the larger natural areas. But still, this book greatly succeeds in making the outdoorsy Pennsylvania fan yearn to visit these hidden secrets.

This Neff genealogy is "not" out of print. I just purchased
a copy from the book store at the Lancaster Mennonite Historical
in Lanacaster, PA. They carry it in stock. Very well written, with a substancial amount of detail and documentation. In stock as of Aug 10, 2003.

Well written book, hard bound, cloth cover, archival 60# paper, fold out maps showing early Neff farms in Lancaster and Huntingdon Co's., PA and early Neff documents from the mid-1700's and early 1800's. Historically accurate and well documented. Printed by Princeton University Press. As of 2003, book is still in print and available.