Kansas Books

Jake McPherson, 39 is the brother of Cord from HH 431 The Wedding Promise.
Was so glad that Jake finally got his story told.

Jake was in a wheelchair and has moved out from their ranch when Cord married Rachel Sinclair [more stories].
He married Lorena and they had a son, Jason who is now nine.
Lorena died just about 2 years ago, Jake and Jason are still grieving.
Jake is living like a hermit, having torn up the ramp built for him to get out of the house. Jason is showing an ill temper to get the attention of his father.

All of this attitude gets dumped on Alicia Merriweather, 30 as she is Jason's teacher. She considers herself on the shelf as far as marriage is concerned. She considers herself too tall, too buxom, too well built and just too plain.

Jake was well on his way to becoming a concert pianoist before Lorena died. Now he won't have anything to do with the concert piano. He refuses to leave the house. He has refused so far to open the curtains and let some sunlight in.

Alicia, with all she has heard of Jake, decides to beard the lion in his den for the sake of his son. She soon learns that Jake apparently enjoys the sass that she gives him.

This is the story of a woman who refuses to give into bad manners although she has to bear emotional hurt. A man who lets fly with his temper but eventually makes amends for his hurtful words. And a boy who just wants his father's attention.

Cord and Rachel show up several time to help the couple even though Jake seems to resent it. We get to see a strong love the brothers have for each other.

An exceedingly excellent story - without all that trashy PMS - heart-warming - even the sheriff is nice.

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED [LIKE ALL OF HER BOOKS] there must be about 5 or 6 to this family run. start with HH 431 - 543 - 556 - 699 - HQN- Redemption + Haven. All excellent.

With effortless flow and emotional narration, Carolyn Davidson delivers REDEMPTION - a story full of profound tenderness and deep emotion delving deep into the heart of the human spirit.

Jake McPherson, is an embittered and angry man - he has the right to live as a hermit and a recluse in his boarded up house with his nine year old son Jason. He has lost much in his life - the Civil War put him in wheelchair and robbed him of his legs as well as losing his beloved wife to pneumonia.

Alicia Merriweather is the town schoolteacher. At 30, she is a no-nonsense, openly spoken, stout woman who realizes that nine year old Jason is belligerent and badly behaved due to the lack of regard from his father. Allowed to run wild, Jason has no discipline and Alicia is about to put a stop to it - no student of hers is going to disrupt her classroom. Sure as you please, she waltzes into Jake's house and into his life, by standing toe-to-toe with him and lets him know exactly what is going on and what he has to do to fix it!! The nerve of the woman!

But soon, Jake realizes that he needs more than a woman to keep his house clean and cook their meals. He decides that Alicia could be the right woman to be a mother to his son - so he asks her to marry him. The battle of wills continues as Alicia is constantly keeping him on his toes. Little does he realize that Alicia is the breath of fresh air his house and his life has badly needed - he comes to realize how much he cares for her as his life slowly starts to change in ways that he never knew would resurface.

With flawless execution and a simple but emotional narrative, this is the story of how a woman heals a man's wounded heart and makes him whole. REDEMPTION will crawl right into your heart and will find a spot on your keeper shelf. Bravo Ms. Davidson, on a beautifully written novel that truly speaks to the heart!

This is the first Carolyn Davidson book I have read and I am hooked!!! I like the language used and she describes her settings and characters so well a visual is automatically in your head. I will find her other books.

I really enjoyed this book. Finally an interesting love interest. Having a man in a wheelchair trying to take care of his son is not a topic dealt with every day. I also enjoyed that our heroine is not a breath taking beauty and he learns to see her inner beauty as he falls in love with her. This is romance, to me, at its very best.

I have just finished reading this book after buying it this afternoon. I loved it!! I honestly cant express in words how good it was. Funny and romantic. Everything I want in a romance novel. I actually picked this book up by accident and never having read a Carolyn Davidson book, was a little leary. I will most definitely purchase more of her books in the near future!! WONDERFUL!

~States' Rights and the Union: Imperium in Imperio, 1776-1876~ is perhaps one of the best new contributions to the study of American constitutional history in recent years. Most history books portray the nature of sovereignty within the American body politic as being well-settled after 1787. In their mind, it was settled that the U.S. was to have a strong central government. This is reductionism at its best and history at its worst. The essence of a true federal regime has always been a diffusion of powers and a dual sovereignty, not a centralized unitary polity like France or the United Kingdom. The framers of the Constitution deliberatedly contemplated a general government with expressly enumerated powers. The contest over States Rights and the Union was almost inevitable, as the American polity was framed with an ingrained contradiction of dual sovereignty that was anathema to European conceptions of sovereignty. McDonald's book is fittingly subtitled Imperium in Imperio, which literally delineates supreme sovereignty within supreme sovereignty. Likewise, the Calvinist notion of man's innate depravity was more readily acceptable to framers who were weary and mistrustful of concentrated power. It was the springboard for fortifying Anglo-American traditions of bicameral legislatures, common law protections for the individual and adding more checks and balances. The framers rejected whimsical views about man's good nature espoused by Rousseau. "Free government is founded in jealousy," avowed Thomas Jefferson, "and not in confidence. It is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power..." Much to the chagrin of modern liberals, the crux of the American polity was the nature of its dual sovereignty coupled with its corporate liberty (i.e. institutions jealously guarding their prerogatives,) not its popular representation.

Forrest McDonald chronicles the political and constitutional history of the American polity in its first century from the time of the Constitutional Convention where the states in convention assented to the formation of the Union. All of the pivotal debates about the nature of the Union are addressed. McDonald pays special attention to contests that reached a groundswell during the administrations of Jefferson and Monroe over federal appropriations for internal improvements. The ensuing Congressional fights over the Bank of the United States, internal improvements, and tariffs would deepen the vexing question over the nature of sovereignty. James Madison brilliantly asserted that the Constitution gives the general government explicit "enumerated objects" of power, and Article I, Section 8 empowers Congress to finance "post roads," though no mention is made for subsidies to railroads or building canals. The original secessionist movement was lead by New England Federalists ironically, and McDonald chronicles the saga of the Hartford Convention. The High Federalists opposed the Louisiana Purchase, because it expanded the states and they argued that while the territory could be expanded that no new states should be added. Jefferson had serious reservations about the legality of the purchase in the absence of Constitutional Amendment, but found the deal too good to pass up. The controversies leading up to the War Between the States and southern secession are discussed. Moreover, the actions of the Supreme Court in shaping the debate over States' Rights and the Union are the subject of constant discussion for McDonald. Ultimately, the Clay-Webster-Lincoln conception of the Union would work to steadily supplant the conservative Madison-Calhoun-Hayne conception of the Union. The dictatorial Lincoln regime and Reconstruction regime could only serve to set the precedent for the New Deal exploits of FDR.

States' Rights is considered an archaic concept now and is often demeaned as a mere buzzword for segregationists. Nonetheless states' rights remains a monumental pillar of the American Republic that needs to be rediscovered and not forgotten. Madison's point is simple, the federal government has expressed powers and limitations, and if there are no limitations on what that government may do than the Tenth Amendment is turned on its nose and a relic of the horse and buggy era. Modern neoconservatives seem only to argue for a renewed commitment to federalism by shifting some powers back to the states on utilitarian grounds of efficiency rather than on constitutional grounds. If you like McDonald, I think books such as _Reassessing the Presidency: The Rise of the Executive State and the Decline of Freedom_ and _The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War_ are also worth considering. McDonald is more of a constitutional storyteller who withholds judgment; those books previously, however, tell it like it is.

Among their many failings, U.S. history textbooks have often portrayed national sovereignty as a largely settled question following the revolutionary war, which was resurrected years later by southern states who wanted to hold slaves. What University of Alabama Professor Forrest McDonald shows in "States' Rights and the Union", is that states' rights infused the national debate of most issues in the first 100 years of the republic.

One of those issues on which McDonald provides a particularly interesting read is the issue of "internal improvements" (modern-day supporters call them "earmarks"; detractors "pork-barrel projects"). What has become commonplace today was once looked at as an unconstitutional extension of federal power. As part of the ongoing debate, McDonald chronicles the 1825 passage of a resolution by the South Carolina legislature which condemned "the taxing of the citizens in one state 'to make roads and canals for the citizens of another state.' Virginia adopted a similar resolution early in 1827, as did Georgia late in the year." Where would today's politicians be if they couldn't deliver for their constituents road and canals? (and bridges and buildings and museums and subsidies).

The book is filled with Supreme Court cases, which serves to reinforce McDonald's contention of the Court's centrality in the states' rights debate. Although today the Supreme Court is looked at with an almost sacred awe, it wasn't always that way. Indeed, McDonald notes in the epilogue that it was with the dismissal of 20th century southern segregationist laws that "the Supreme Court gained an enormous fund of moral capital in the rest of the country" which it used to consolidate its power. But due to the constant shuffle of Supreme Court Justices, the Court has been a sometime friend and othertime foe of states' rights.

The jackets says the book was "written in an accessible style", but demands some familiarity with U.S. History (which should disqualify about 75 percent of the American public). However, what McDonald has done is to write a consistent narrative of one of the most important and unique features of American democracy. Although the narrative ends in 1876, it is instructive background for many current debates in U.S. politics and the epilogue sets the stage for a much-needed sequel. In light of the extensive research McDonald put into the first 100 years of the states' rights debate, it would be fascinating to see him focus that same energy on the last 125, and especially the Rhenquist court.

The other reviews have fairly well covered the ground, save for the notion that the more background you bring to this book, the more sense it makes. I had just finished bios of Washington and JQA when I undertook this, thank heavens. The "meandering" criticism is, I think, misplaced. The author is simply trying to ball up the strings of attitudes, attitudes which shifted as quickly as regional economic interests.

The reviewer who asserts the book is a lightening rod for one's own opinions has a point. The past few generations have grown up with the notion that the federal government is "She who must be obeyed" (with apologies to Rumpole). But it ain't necessarily so, were it not for the fact that the feds have the guns and tanks and, as Nixon and Bush 43 have demonstrated, the willingness to use them on our own people. (Don't get edgy about Bush43 -- absolutely not in the same league with Kent State. B43 has merely run roughshod over the civil rights of all Americans in the name of protecting me from terrorism).

It had been unimaginable to me that the states would ever consider they need not obey federal law. Nor did my American History classes cause me to realize that various state factions have seriously courted secession many times. Once again, "A little learning is a dangerous thing," A. Pope. Are we about to swing back towards greater states' rights? I don't know. Certainly the current administration prefers an Imperial Presidency, but the SCt may, indeed, move towards a more balanced situation.

As the reviewers have implied, McDonald leaves one with the notion that the founding fathers had no consensus about how much power belonged where. I do not subscribe to the view that constitutional tensions were left present because our forebearers were prescient. Rather, their generation, like ours, had a wide diversity of viewpoints. As has happened many times with many laws, ambiguity has allowed for agreement, after which legislators could move on to something else.

There are no simple solutions, nor have there ever been. Politicians, from revolutionary to the current batch, pushing simplistic solutions have, when successful, succeeded in driving a wedge between regions. After reading this book, I am astonished that the US has not torn itself asunder. Little wonder the 18th century Brits did not expect the US to survive as a nation.

States' Rights and the Union: Imperium in Imperio 1776-1876 written by Forrest McDonald is a very illuminating work on the vexing theme of States' Rights vs Union, a theme in American history and politics that has and will continue to elicite debate.

Forrest McDonald works both sides of the debate in this book and you'll find yourself straddling the fence here, wary of federal power or states' rights, as the Constitution gave the central government expansive powers, but it also legitimated the doctrine of states' rights, resulting in dual-sovereignty or as McDonald says, Imperium in Imperio, (sovereignty within sovereignty, supreme power within supreme power), or the division of power within a single jurisdiction. This inherent tension and uncertainty was, I think, intentionally written into the constitution to keep both sides honest. This debate seems to always keep the pot hot, only occasionally boiling over into contention.

McDonald has a pleasenly elegant narrative that is easily readable giving an insightful look at the delicate balance of dual-sovereignty. Taking us from the Federalist Era through the Jeffersonians to finally the Civil War and Reconstruction all the while giving the reader insight to the various positions each serving a purpose as authority between general and local seemed to sway in one direction or another, only to be upset anew and to move back toward the opposite position, but the contention never went away. The division of sovereignty was generally regarded as impossible, but only in America where political thinking underwent a fundamental transformation, bringing unparalleled and unprecedented constitution-making, and only until Americans devised a way of doing it, did it happen.

The Constitution did give the general government broad powers within a limited sphere and thereby institutionalized a system of divided sovereignty. Reading and understanding this book you'll find that you'll side and reside yourself as the debate goes on, from the states' righters as John Taylor and John Randolph argue the definition of tyranny is the concentration of power in some remote center, but the opposite side John Quincy Adams and Nicholas Biddle ardently argue for vigorous action at the center was vital if the nation was to fulfill its promise and its destiny among the family of nations.

This is a well balanced work of enlightenment for each position making point and counter-point and is well documented. This is a worthy read for those wanting to broaden their knowledge of why things are as they are in the United States... according to their Constitution, a form of government that empowers its people above all.

This book would be of interest if only for the fact that it serves as a lightening rod for the reader's preconceptions on the issues surrounding States' Rights. Read the reviews below and note that some of the reviewers tend to regard McDonald as an advocate for the States and some read him as an advocate for the Feds.
Readers will tend to find in this book evidence to support their own views. That should suggest that McDonald has succeeded in giving us a fairly objective history of the issue. I feel he has. Sort of.
The first part of the book does seem to meander. That is the nature of the beast. I have never read any comprehensive history of constitutional history that does not meander. Many different issues were argued during the first sixty years or so of our constitutional history using States Rights on one side or the other. I think you would be very hard pressed to name one major national figure in that time frame who did not argue both sides of the debate at different times in their lives or in regards to different issues. Madison, Hamilton, Jefferson, Jackson, Webster, Clay and Calhoun all are associated with one side or another on the issue yet all at some point in their careers argued the other side.
Individual states showed their flexibility on these issues as well. In the chapter on the period immediately preceding the Civil War, 'Dissolving the Union', McDonald notes that the North began to preach nullification while Southerners began to praise the Court.
The latter part of the book probably seems more focused because the issues were more focused and the positions of the players more dogmatic.
I suspect that most of us still find ourselves on both sides of the debate depending on which issue we are discussing. As an Oregonian, I have been annoyed recently by the Federal government trying to contravene the wishes of the people of my State in regards to the Death with Dignity Act. On many other issues, I have supported that same Federal government when it interfered with the laws of individual States, e.g., in the case of laws nationalizing voting rights. Now, before, y'all jump all over me for inconsistency, ask yourself in you are not in the same boat. And while you are at it, ask yourself if most political issues do not involve making a decision on more than one constitutional issue. And whether how much of a role that States' Rights play in our reaction to an issue depends on our feelings about the other constitutional issues involved.
Consider that the political and economic issues debated in this country have always had that type of complexity and I believe it will be clear why McDonald's history is not a nice flowing narrative.
While I think McDonald's history is useful, I find myself questioning some of his judgments. I think he has a tendency to make statements that are not supported by evidence. On p. 120 McDonald claims, 'Jackson brought such disrepute to his office that that vital function of the presidency could scarcely be performed again for the remainder of the century'. This strikes me as a wee bit of an overstatement.
I also find his handling of certain events to be questionable, e.g., the notorious caning of Charles Sumner by Preston Brooks. McDonald seems to feel that Sumner was malingering. Maybe. Maybe I would feel like malingering too if struck repeatedly on the head with a gutta-percha cane. In any case, I remain a little skeptical about McDonald as pure historian. But don't take my word for it. I am just some schmuck who reads a lot. Read one of his books and decide for yourself.
If the issue of the relative power of the States vis-a-vis the Federal government is of interest to you then this is a useful book. If you have a strong opinion you will find additional support for either side within these pages. If your opinion on these issues is unclear, this book should be of use in sorting out some of your ideas simply by the way you find yourself reacting to the various arguments.
One final note- in evaluating what happened to the South after the Civil War, it is important to also keep in mind the monumental and systematic terrorism that was unleashed on black people during this time. The reaction of Southerners to Reconstruction is probably the strongest argument for federal intervention in the political lives of the states. The protection of minorities from the majority was one of the main reasons Madison and others pushed for the writing and ratification of the Constitution. Which minority is the focus of that protection at whatever historical moment is one of the story lines of our constitutional history. It is altogether too easy to forget this when reading a book like this one. I cannot recommend highly enough Eric Foner's great book on Reconstruction as a general background to reading about the era.

Great book on the history of the presidency by the inimitable Professor McDonald. The book begins with how the framers were influenced by English law and the history of the executive (ie king and prime minister) up to that point in history. Realize that had there been no George Washington, the framers would have been reluctant to create an executive position that is now known as the presidency.

Professor McDonald marginally develops the intellectual foundation for the presidency and produces soundly researched insights into the presidencies of Washington and Jefferson, but the book cascades into a morass of arbitrary research and shallow analysis in the second half.

His treatment of early philosophical underpinnings for a presidential-type leader is overly long is not well-connected with the actual thoughts and writings of the founders, but his attempt is admirable. The book reaches its height in the examination of the presidencies of Washington and Jefferson, particularly with regard to Jefferson. McDonald describes Jefferson as an astute molder of presidential authority, especially in relation to a quasi-legislative role with Congress and with regard to international relations.

In the last half of the book, however, McDonald turns rather cavalier in his research and arbitrary in his conclusions. Mostly secondary research is selectively presented and arguments are developed with little depth. Most alarmingly for a seasoned and well-regarded historian, his partisanship is scarcely veiled. He defends Nixon as a sympathetic foreign affairs wizard who tried to reign in an irresponsible Congress, but fell prey to a shallow and vindictive press. While a full treatment of Nixon is hardly within the boundaries of this book, Nixon's self-induced problems and serious attempts at Constitutional disruption are embarrassingly not discussed. Additionally, his unabashed admiration for Reagan, while blaming Congress for huge budget deficits and while indicting both a partisan Congress and the press for exaggerating the Iran-Contra affair, displays a lack of judicious and rigorous analysis.

Not a waste of time, but not satisfactory either.

The American Presidency is like no other institution in the world and as evolved precariously from its heyday in 1787. Forrest McDonald focuses on the first few years of the Presidency. he then correlates modern developments and the expansion of the executive state coupled with the rise of the so called fourth branch of government, the bureaucracy. McDonald is somewhat of a conservative, but often withholds judgment on , though refrains from the enthusiastic lust for power and centralization that liberal historians like Arthur Schlesinger seem to have. (I give this book a 3.5/5.0 rating.) I recommend purchasing this book in tandem with _Reassessing the Presidency : The Rise of the Executive State and the Decline of Freedom_ from the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

Mr. McDonald, in his excellent book, traces the theory and practice of the presidency from Washington to Clinton. The theme is a comparison of constitutional writings and the framers' intent, an area in which McDonald is expert, compared with the actual events on the ground. The oval-office push for ever increasing amounts of power, dubbed the "Imperial Presidency" during the Nixon administration, is behavior that did not originate with 20th century presidents. McDonald argues that congress bears much if not most of the responsibility in that it has, decade by decade, abdicated its constitutional responsibilities in many areas, creating a partial vacuum into which the presidency has stepped. McDonald points out the large number of undeclared wars presidents, stretching back to Jefferson, have begun with no objection from congress. Lest we have forgotten, the ability to declare war was vested in congress to prevent presidents from "expeditioning" abroad.

The book is heavily footnoted, but that is not a distraction. The bulk of the focus is on the first decades of this country's existence and the historic background to the creation of the office of "President." Much effort has gone into detailing the philosophy considered by the framers. Our constitution was, after all, written during the "Age of Reason." This background is, at least in part, the reason the book is subtitled "An Intellectual History."

The difficulties in defining the role of the president are part of why most democracies opt for a parliamentary style government. Another huge issue, as Lincoln demonstrated by completely ignoring the constitution he claimed to be upholding in the Civil War, is that if the troops remain loyal to the president, the American system of checks and balances can be destroyed much more easily (at least in theory) than in parliament in which the prime minister's coalition could remove him from power.

This book is another of Professor McDonald's carefully researched and well-written series on the foundations of our nation and our government. It is truly a "must read."

The American Presidency: An Intellectual History written by Forrest McDonald is a book with incisive analysis of political ideas which are found in the characteristics involving the Presidency of the United States. This book is well founded in the history and is solid in early hystory.

The presidency is given a thorough thought-provoking, with historical review, going over... leaving the reader with insight into the institution of the presidency. We are guided with a shrewd sense of political reality, making us understand what the presidency is all about. Reading this book will open up and give us an erudite exanination of the roots of the American presidency... so much so, that you'll feel history come alive and jump right in your lap.

I particularly found the writing on the Washington and Jefferson presidencies to be of great value as the author shows us how these men distinguished the office and made important contributions to our constitutional history. The reader finds out about the awesome responsibilities combined with unique opportunities to persuade others to do their bidding.

In truth, presidentual power is complex and ambiguous, traits that stem from the constitutional provisions for the office... the executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States according to Article 2 of the Constitution... unequivocally. This book is well documented and is written in a masterful narritive, but is easily understood. I found that the early work to be indispensable as the ground work is set and the office is determined. Though the restraints and limits are necessary, they are not, in the nature of things, susceptible to delineation and definition.

As the book progresses on in the life of the presidency we see the individual personallities of the men who served in to office begin to shape the outcome of the office. Making scupulous adherence to written law, self-preservation, and the safety of the nation all interplay in the balance of power between the different branches of the constitutional government.

If you really want to know more about the presidency, look no further as this books gives the reader an illuminating insight with theoretical background of the presidency. this is a very informative and fascinating book.

Look into the past to prepare for the future. This book gives a good understand how past experience shapes our life. May not be for everyone but approach with an open mind and heart.

Very informative to learn why we don't understand the whys and where all our personal problems came from. Good counseling to help in unlocking our wounded pasts and how they have by our natural make-up set in motion body functions that have to be re-wired to correct and live freely productive and prosperous lives. How traumas really affect us physically, mentally, emotionally as well as spiritually.

Book received in good condition and delivery was received in a timely manner

This is a great read for anyone who is an abuse survivor or someone who lives or works with an abuse victim. It is easy to read and explains so much that other books on this topic don't. It is not full of psycho mumbo jumbo and written in lay mans terms. Highly recommended.

It was Dr. Paul Hegstrom's teaching that changed our lives forever. In 1994, we were struggling in a ten year marriage that had lots of problems including abuse and adultery.

Dr. Hegstrom's teachings began the miracle that we needed in our life and marriage. The next ten years of our marriage were so wonderful that in 2004, we wrote our first book on marriage, "The Man of Her Dreams/The Woman of His!" Dr. Hegstrom wrote the Preface to the book.

Let Dr. Hegstrom's teachings change your life and while you are at it, click on the following link and get a double blessing! The Man of Her Dreams The Woman of His!

If you like The Man of Her Dreams/The Woman of His! - then you will also want to check out The Man of Her Dreams The Woman of His 2 - Livin' It and Lovin' It! (Volume 2)


Joel and Kathy Davisson

This was a pretty good book about American Indians and the whole boarding school experience. David Adams really brought the experience to life. The only downside to this book is that I think he tried to cover too much. He covered a great span of time and the book was pretty long and got a little slow at times.

I read this for a class and enjoyed it very much. It is one of the best I have read for Native Studies. There are many facts and other pieces of information that I had not found in other books.

A fascinating -- and heartbreaking -- look at the cultural devastation ensuing from the efforts of many well-meaning educators intent on "civilizing" Native Americans. Beautifully written, thoughtful, and thought-provoking, this book is a splendid and welcome examination of one of our contry's most shameful episodes.

This all too true account of the reeducation process which American government officials euphemistically had Indian children go through is very chilling. It is maddening to believe there were people in Washington who actually considered such treatment of kids to be 'good policy'.

While reading through this book, I was gennuinely driven to tears. The tactics which were used on the kids were what was 'savage'. Ethnocentrism and racism kept the United States government and its representatives from seeing the Indians as a civilized and advanced society.

The primary and secondary sources which David Wallace Adams cites emphasize that the 'pupils' were not naive and passive victims of these abuses. Predating the American Indian Movement of the 1960's and 1970's, they resisted the 'education' which these schools were trying to shove down their own throats.

This book was recommended to me by my academic advisor, as it is considered an important and influential treatise on the subject of Native American education. David Wallace Adams, in his groundbreaking book, "Education for Extinction: American Indians and the Boarding School Experience, 1875-1928," shows how the case for education was made. First, Euro-Americans believed that the older generation of Indians was incapable of becoming civilized and were too attached to their old ways to change. The youthfulness of Indian children meant they could still be saved.

Secondly, education quickened the process of cultural evolution from savagism to civilization. Isolating the children, many felt, would help to reduce the influence of their tribes and their traditional cultures. Lastly, education helped prepare the Indians for self-sufficiency.

I really enjoy this book as it is extremely well written. Adams, unlike some historians, did not use too many jargons and his writing is easy to understand. Adams also provided background information for readers who are not proficient in this subject matter. In addition, "Education for Extinction" was heavily researched and well-documented.

The Kansas Connection "Dugout" block is simply a square with two smaller squares sewn diagonally on opposite sides, pressed open, to reveal two triangle units. Very simple to make, but with so many possibilities! Using different color variations and layouts, the designs you can make are almost limitless. Like her book, "It's Okay If You Sit On My Quilt," Mary Ellen uses grids to show her blocks and quilts, which makes it easy to understand where the units are. However, like all of her books, this is not a "how-to" book with detailed instructions. It's a workbook that encourages the reader how to use his/her own creative imagination.

I think the book you would need is "Connecting Up" also
by Mary Ellen.

Get ready quilters because this pattern is addictive. There is so much you can do with it. Mary Ellen's instructions are very easy to follow and just by twisting and turning one square you can have several different turn-outs. She also shows ways to make the prettiest stars by using the Kansas Dugouts. I don't think anyone should be without this book in their collection. It's an adventure every time you open the book.

This is another excellent "how to," easy to follow guide for the beginner who has made at least one block, and a seasoned quilter looking for inspiration. It's full of color graphs, encouragement, and innumerable variations on one quilt block pattern. You are limited only by your own imagination. One reviewer mentioned the block "Mississippi," also known as the "Friendship Star." It's shown on page 22. (The pattern appears also in Hopkins' earlier work, "It's Okay If You Sit On My Quilt," as graph No. 194, page 61.) I'm a self-taught quilter of over 20 years and still learning. Mary Ellen Hopkins is one of my favorites - she can make the basics seem new. And I like her attitude!

if you ordered this book after seeing Ms Hopkins recently on "Simply Quilts" and seeing her demonstrate the "Kansas Dugout" block and the "Mississippi" block and quilt (supposedly based on the Dugout block and this book). The book came today, and guess what? No pattern, picture, or diagram of the block or quilt "Mississippi"! There are plenty of colored diagrams of her designs, but (as is true of many of her other books) woefully little in the way of instructions, sizes, yardages, etc. This is mainly a 47 page combination coloring book for her designs...and a "new" design for "Barn Raising". It is not, I believe, worth the price.

The telling of "Machine Gun Kelly's Last Stand" is at once fast-paced, eerie and suspenseful. Stanley Hamilton's eccentric characters are plucked from the pages of history to recreate their nefarious deeds. Truth really is stranger than fiction, and Hamilton fills every keystroke with tension.

I wrote my masters thesis on the Urschel kidnapping case and spent a year reading thousands of related books, articles, historic documents and public records. Hamilton's book was by far the most exhaustive and most accurate account. The few errors in the book are errors that actually exist in the public record (Kathryn Kelly's eyes were green, not hazel; her middle name was not Mae, and a few other minor facts.)

In addition to being accurate and complete, it was also well-written and interesting to read. It's novel-like qualities included excellent character development and conclusions about each player that helped "close" the story. If you want to know the Machine Gun Kelly story, this is the book to read.

BTW: A few interesting facts were not included in the book, such as: 1)the Urschel kidnapping trials were the first in U.S. history to be recorded on moving camera; 2) the Kelly trials were the ONLY federal criminal trial EVER to have news cameras in the courtroom; and 3)Kelly's accomplices were the first criminal suspects ever transported by airplane.

Stanley Hamilton's account of the Urschel kidnapping is very good in this book. He has some new information on George "Machine Gun" Kelly, which has not be published previously. This book is good reading and should be in your library of crime books. A great job!

Mike Koch, author of "The Kimes Gang."

Stan Hamilton has written a great narrative history in which there are surprises, odd twists and unexpected heroes. It is a fine well-written book in which neither Kelly nor his foil, J. Edgar Hoover, are the most fascinating charcters' but rather that role is reserved for the smartest of victims, Charles Urchel, and the powerful, conniving Kathryn Kelly. I will not give this one away, but will tell you that this book delivers one first rate couple of evenings of reading which not only tells a strong story but gives an insight into the world of 1933 --gangsters and bootleg gin. You will love this book!!!!

Having read many books on gangsters you come across some real turkeys but Stanley Hamilton's account of Machine Gun Kelly's crimes was very well written without the usual padding out that some writers tend to use.

It is a very informative account of the kidnapping and aftermath which kept me gripped until the end.

The book's ending was, for once, a surprise and I would recommend this title to readers who like True Crime to be based on facts and not the fiction.

This is a lovely endearingly funny book. I read it in just an evening but I'm sure it's a book I'll go back to in the future.

This book was a disappointment to me. Although it is only a slight volume I found it to be heavy going and very uninteresting. Avoid.

I don't know anyone in the Trillin family personnally, but I recognize them very well. I learned something I didn't know--that Jews landed some place other than Ellis Island. As a father myself, I appreciate what Abe did for his son. So did Calvin.

Such is Calvin Trillin's caliber of work you don't realize how good he is, and he is really good. This book touched me deeply; Mr. Trillinsky was not an emotional man and given to the touchy feely sort of stuff so espoused these days, but he gave his son everything he would need to have a fulfilling life, one of the main components being a deep, abiding and unconditional love; how lucky Mr. Trillin was.

My father was an evil and stupid man who never learned from his mistakes and is now reaping the whirlwind; I believe Mr. Trillinsky would have I.D.'d him in five minutes flat, and would have had mercy on him, much more than I can manage now. If you are raising a child, or trying to figure out what in God's green earth happened to you during your childhood, read this book. Mr. Trillin's artistry is a delicious extra.

I have read "Remembering Denny" and it has seared a place in my mind since. It explained so much to me. This is another book that is going to go on my mental bookshelf, probably till the end of me.

Humorist, journalist, food maven, the author of numerous books and a writer for The New Yorker, Trillin brings his blend of self-deprecating humor and thoughtful observation to this affectionate memoir of his father.

Abram Trilinsky emigrated to St. Joseph, Missouri, from Russia at the age of two. When his wife hinted at a trip to Europe, his terse response was, "I've been." He was resolutely a mid-western American, a man who changed his name to Abe Trillin, and at the end of his life exhibitted the only prejudice his son ever observed - an impatience with "refugees," by which he meant people who clung to the language and customs of their country of origin.

He was a stubborn man, like most of his family, described by his wife as "Mules!" "I sometimes imagined my father as swearing off things just to keep in practice," his son observes.

He never swore although he collected colorful curses - "May you have an injury that's not covered by workman's compensation." His honesty was absolute - when a child turned 12 he paid full price at the movies even if he looked 9.

He was unassuming. When Calvin was in high school, his father opened a restaurant and took to wearing yellow ties. "He said something about how most people don't stand out from the crowd, and how it helped to have a sort of signature." This seemed embarrasing to his adolescent son. "What was so great about having someone say, 'Oh, yes, Abe Trillin - the guy with the yellow ties'?" But years later at Abe's funeral, he's touched by how many friends asked for a yellow tie as a remembrance.

His father was not a talker. One of his favorite jokes concerned a Jewish actor who finally gets a real part playing a Jewish father. The actor asks his father why he seems disappointed. " 'Of course I'm proud of you son,' " the father says, " 'But we were hoping you'd get a speaking part.' "

Calvin writes, "What strikes me as odd now is how much my father managed to get across without those heart-to-hearts that I've read about fathers and sons having." Without it being talked about, Calvin knew his father was ambitious for him. "It was a given in our family that my father was a grocer so that I wouldn't have to be."

One of their biggest arguments concerned Calvin's joining the Boy Scouts. He hated Boy Scouts but Abe regarded it as essential to American boyhood, a necessary step on the way to Yale, Trillin senior's university of choice, an idea he'd gotten from a novel read as a boy - Stover At Yale.

Calvin went to Yale. Yale launched him out of Kansas City, never to return (also as Abe expected). The grocer's son would never be a grocer.

In one (somewhat unrealistically) ingenuous chapter Trillin goes to a dinner of prominent writers and realizes that they all went to Ivy League schools as he did. Was there a connection? (Puleeeeze). "For the first time, I realized that my father's vision of how all of this was supposed to work out might not have been as simplistic as I had always assumed."

This slim volume is deeply captivating and affecting. His father emerges as a man of indomitable will, will so strong he imposed it simply by being. He was a man who could afford to be easy going and funny, all the while adhering to a plan of grand ambition which embraced cross country automobile trips to broaden the horizons of his children and simple pronouncements: "You might as well be a mensch." Much of the book's power lies in the author's recognition of himself as his father's ambition fulfilled - a successful American who does his best to "be a mensch," a real human being.

So many of us are in search of the "fountain of youth." I think Waldo found it in simple living and healthy choices. Great book, with a simple message. Easy to listen to and enjoyable to hear. Quaint. Thanks for sharing your interesting and fascinating life with us.

Wow! Wish I could do some of the things Waldo is doing now! And I'm only 52! Just shows what you can do if you stay close to God. For another good read & to see what a man can do if he stays close to God; try this short book out to experience romance, adventure, and excitement at the End-Days! "Eva-Christ" by myself Mark Foster and availble her on Amazon.com Thanks!
Eva-Christ

To be honest, I have not received this item yet. I saw this man and his book featuered on a Television news show. Accordign to it, he personally signs and mails each copy. This gentleman is over 100 years old and still goes to work every day. I cant wait to get his book.

Mr. McBurney's life has been a long and interesting one. I was especially impressed with the fact that his father lived 40+ years after his first stroke in part because of his doctor who was ahead of his time in his treatment. The author was wise at a young age to see that it might work for him, too. Faith, exercise, fresh fruits and vegetables, with a bit of honey - it's really quite simple. Why don't more of us follow that path? I listened to the audio book and while a professional actor's voice might have been stronger with more inflection, Mr. McBurney's own voice lent an authenticity to the reading that could not be duplicated.

R. Waldo McBurney definitely has a great sense of humor and healthy habits that we should all look at today. I read this brief book and thought it was really great. I initially discovered McBurney as one of the oldest working Americans during a news interview while surfing the 'net. The author's quick wit and solid upbringing, as well as his perseverence to continue to lead an active lifestyle is reflected in this book. Many of the same things he said during his interview were also in this book, but the book provides much more detail into his thoughts.
If I live to his age, I hope to write another follow-up to his book to reflect its validity.

As an ex-CIA polygraph examiner who served for four years in Vietnam, John Sullivan traveled throughout much of Indochina while performing lie detector tests in support of the US war effort. Over a quarter of a century later, Sullivan's memoirs tell the story of a man who, trained by a spy agency to unearth deceit, embarks upon a mission to a Cold War hotspot where he discovers deception and incompetence to be as perennial as the grass in the Vietnamese countryside.

While Sullivan makes it clear from the beginning that he did serve with a number of good men in Vietnam, he expresses astonishment at the degree of operational ineffectiveness (or just plain irresponsibility) on the part of many CIA personnel in Saigon Station and outer lying regions, which strangely enough became a backwater for 'problem' officers despite the country's exceptional strategic importance to US policy makers.

In reference to the author's tradecraft, Sullivan makes three worthwhile points about polygraph testing:

1) "Polygraph is about 92 percent art and 8 percent science."
2) "The fact that intangibles cannot be quantified or scientifically measured challenges the claim that polygraph is a science. I do not believe that it is possible to put a percentage on the reliability of polygraph testing, but under optimal conditions, it is very reliable."
3) Even if a subject registers as being deceptive on a polygraph, "unless an admission is obtained, the final determination is frequently what we refer to as a scientific wild-ass guess (SWAG)."

Although I would have enjoyed hearing more detailed discussions of Sullivan's expertise, I understand that there are limits as to how much can be openly discussed regarding his specialty. Nonetheless, this book scores a high mark in that it enables readers to walk away with a better understanding of both the Vietnam War as well as polygraph testing.

The book starts out one story at a time and some times the thought is "why tell me about a broken desk cover" but at the end you know more about what it was really like in Laos and Vietnam. John was known as the man who would tell the truth to those in power. Now he shares it with the rest of us.

As we see the formulation of a new "homeland security agency" it is a reminder to us that the best way to get good results is pay attention to every step of the process. Our Vietnam operation had great support and many poor operations with the information results (even the good information) seeming to get lost on the way to those who needed it. The lesson I see is that all of the details are important. Bottle necks can kill.

As a history major who took courses on the Cold War in college, I can say with certainty that this book would be invaluable and highly instructive to anyone who reads it.

As an Intelligence Analyst I have come to appreciate the work case officers like John Sullivan have done in service of their country. This book should be required reading for all polygraphers and case officers.

As an officer in the military, I have come to realize that many of the lessons learned from Vietnam have been applied in today's armed services. The book points out low-points in the CIA that can be used to improve (if not already) current operations.

His style of writing makes it easy to follow, and allows the reader to get a good glimpse of CIA operations in Vietnam through the eyes of an honest, hard working, dutiful man.

Anyone who has any interest in Vietnam, whether for school, occupation, or hobby, must read this book to get the full picture.

Many of the stories in the book are very light accounts of annoying conversations: personality conflicts. The author is apparently a real straight arrow and he has endless accounts of turns of phrase and trivial happenstances that annoyed him. Like the guy who switched his cracked desk glass for John's good one. Who cares, I mean literally? There is very little insight given to the interrogation process proper, which I was expecting because that is, after all, the author's specialty. In the end you have a sense that Vietnam was fill of corrupt, drunk spooks, and one lone shiny penny -- the author.

John Sullivan's "Of Spies and Lies" is a fascinating account of wartime CIA intelligence operations in Vietnam that should be required reading not only for students of the Vietnam War, but also for anyone interested in the current war on terror. John's discussions of the difficulties an intelligence agency faces in recruiting penetrations of a difficult and dangerous enemy organization and his descriptions of problems caused by the shortage of officers with the requisite language and area knowledge bear disturbing similarities to headlines we see in the press every day. It is another illustration of the old saw that "those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
John's book provides a unique window into life in the CIA's Saigon Station. His description of Agency operations in Vietnam ranges from the controversy surrounding our best penetration of the Viet Cong leadership to the polygraphing of local employees over the disappearance of a few slices of ham at a party (an incident I remember quite well). John also gives unprecedented insights into the important role the Agency's requirement for polygraph vetting plays in keeping case officers, who work daily in the murky waters of spies, fabricators, and con-men, on the straight and narrow road of the pursuit of the truth. CIA polygraphers like John helped lead the way in the development of a systematic vetting process for use in the conduct of clandestine intelligence collection operations. The book illustrates how that process works and how, when the process is ignored or distorted, the entire system can quickly break down.
I served with John in Saigon Station and know his reputation as one of the Agency's best. As a former Saigon Station officer, some of his criticisms of personnel and procedures in Southeast Asia are painful, but their accuracy is incontrovertible. I highly recommend this book.