If you are looking for a bed-night story, that gives you an insight to all general aspects of life from a biochemist point of view: its possible origins, structure of the macromolecules which forms organisms, reactions and interactions to form larger complexes with biological functions, etc. You just found it! Although you need some experience, the book is quite light. Not a lot of concentration is required, just interest to understand living systems. It helps, the fact that it's resembles a literature book because of it's size and number of pages. Also, it has lots of diagrams, pictures and schemas that facilitate the comprehension of such a difficult subject. Until now is the only science book I have read which is perfect for bed-night reading. Even thought I was hoping for something different when I bought it, I enjoyed it. That's why it must be noticed: "Introductory Biophysics" it's not a complete textbook of biochemistry nor Biophysics. I consider that the objective of the authors is not providing a book to obtain technical references, but invite you to integrate all the knowledge you may have about biological sciences in order to reflect about the existence and function of life.

If you are looking for a bed-night story, that gives you an insight to all general aspects of life from a biochemist point of view: its possible origins, structure of the macromolecules which forms organisms, reactions and interactions to form larger complexes with biological functions, etc. YOU JUST FOUND IT! Although you need some experience, the book is quite light. Not a lot of concentration is required, just interest to understand living systems. It helps, the fact that it's resembles a literature book because of it's size and number of pages. Also, it has lots of diagrams, pictures and schemas that facilitate the comprehension of such a difficult subject. Until now is the only science book I have read which is perfect for bed-night reading. Even thought I was hoping for something different when I bought it, I enjoyed it. That's why it must be noticed: "Introductory Biophysics" it's not a complete textbook of biochemistry nor Biophysics. I consider that the objective of the authors is not providing a book to obtain technical references, but invite you to integrate all the knowledge you may have about biological sciences in order to reflect about the existence and function of life.

I came to the book as a skeptic based on the contoversy over the exhibit as it had been portrayed in the media. I have studied World War II for over 20 years and have generally supported the decision to use the Atomic Bomb to end the war and save lives. I also speak from the perspective of the son of a WWII USAAF veteran who survived 65 combat missions in the Pacific Theatre, so any exhibit that hinges on the war ending mission of that conflict holds special significance for me and my family.

The way the proposed exhibit was portrayed in the media and from the criticisms presented by the AF Association and others made it appear that the Smithsonian's presentation would be biased toward those who were critical of the use of the Bomb. However, it is clear from the book that the proposed exhibit would have been a very balanced and effective one that would not have detracted from the reputations of the men and women who participated in this project and carried out the mission. I think the critics were objecting to individual portions of the entire presentation out of context and perhaps felt that any attempt to present opposing views would be seen as defaming the efforts of Paul Tibbets and the USAAF. I visit the Air and Space Museum several times per year, as well as the USAF Museum in Dayton OH, and have viewed the Enola Gay exhibit on a number of occasions. While I do like the current exhibit, I now feel somewhat 'cheated', knowing what could have been included if the original exhibit had been completed as planned. I think some of the critics would come to the same conclusion if they took the time to carefully read this entire volume.

For me, one of the important portions of the book was the discussion of projected casualties of a planned invasion of the Japanese Home Islands if the Atomic Bomb had not been used. The book makes clear that the 'million casualties' estimate was a figure that came into wide usage after the fact and was not based on the estimates made at the time by the Joint Chiefs. The actual estimates were much lower, but even the actual projected casualties in the tens of thousands are not insignificant and clearly had to weigh on the minds of planners. The use of an inflated 'million dead' figure by supporters of the bomb do not serve to illuminate the actual decision making process any more than some of the more absurdly low estimates from recent revisionist historians who support their criticism of the bombing by claiming that no more than 20,000 US casualties would have resulted from an invasion.

The 50,000 US casualties from the just completed Okinawa campaign, contested over a much smaller area and smaller number of defenders than the home islands, made clear that an invasion would be very costly in US lives. The exhibit did not make clear the toll on Japanese lives in such a land war, and that would have added another important dimension.

I came away from volume with a good deal more information on the subject than I had previously, with leads to other excellent primary and secondary sources on the subject. An exhibit modeled on the original design would have satisfied the serious student of WWII and would have pulled in the previously uninformed visitor to a topic worthy of further examination. That is the hallmark of any good museum project. And it would have done so without upsetting the sensibilities of the most ardent patriot and supporter of this war-ending mission. The Smithsonian Air and Space Museum is the only institution that could have provided this sort of exhibit and now we won't have the opportunity to see it, but at least this book allows a glimpse at what might have been. The only omission was a lack of photos of what would have been included in the planned exhibit. If the volume is republished at a later date, efforts should be made to locate and include as much of this as possible.

JUDGEMENT AT THE SMITHSONIAN has three parts:
the original script of the censored Smithsonian Enola Gay
exhibit, a forward by Philip Nobile, the editor of the
volume, concerning the controversy over the exhibit and the
morality of the bombings, and an afterword by Barton
Bernstein, which summarizes the evolution, current state,
and relation to the script of historical writings on the atomic
bombings of Japan.

I was interested in this book because I wanted to know why
the opponents of the exhibit objected to it. The script treats a
number of controversial points, such as possible anti-Soviet
motivations for dropping the bomb, or the projected number
of American casulties in an invasion of Japan, by presenting
the various viewpoints expressed in the historical literature
without drawing any definite conclusions of its own. I did
not see what could be objectionable in summarizing what
others had written, nor what purpose would be served by
suppressing a text that was based on well known historical
scholarship, although the treatment of these controversies
was cited by some critics as a reason for their objections.
The fourth section of the script, Ground Zero, which
describes the effects of the bombs, seems to have been the
most objectionable section of the exhibit. Critics charged that
photographs and other evidence of these effects gave the
impression that the bombings were immoral, and that the
exhibit neglected to supply evidence showing that the
bombings were morally justified. Since the book contains
only the text, no photographs, it does not completely portray
how the exhibit would have appeared.

The first half of Bernstein's Afterword is an interesting and
informative overview of Hiroshima scholarship. The second
half compares the exhibit to the scholarly record, and
includes his recollections about the advisory board for the
exhibit, of which he was a member. Bernstein's opinion is
that script is generally accurate in its presentation of both the
events leading up to and following the atomic bombing, and
in its presentation of the main schools of thought about the
history of the bombings. Of particular note are his remarks
that this was the dominant conclusion of the advisory board
at its first meeting about the script, also held by Air Force
historians Hallion and Wolk, who later changed their
opinions after the main critics began their campaign against
the exhibit. Bernstein observes that opinion concerning the
necessity and morality of using the bombing was mixed
from the time the bombs were dropped. He also observes
that the view the critics wished presented in the exhibit
required ignoring many important sources. Bernstein says
that the critics may have been concerned that viewers of the
exhibit may have gotten the impression that the bombings
were morally wrong, though he believes that the script does
not attempt to present this point of view.

Philip Nobile's forward chronicles the events in the
controversy over the exhibit, lists the evidence that the
bombings were war crimes, and discusses the possibility
that the US apologize to Japan for Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Despite the depressing subject matter, this forward is
written in a lively style. It does what the exhibit script was
accused of doing, but did not do: challenges the morality of
the decision to drop the bomb.

The publication of JUDGEMENT suggests that the success
of the critics at suppressing the exhibit was not complete.
Since JUDGEMENT contains only the text, not the
photographs and artifacts from Ground Zero, it does not
have the emotional impact that part of the exhibit would have
had, and in my view the publication of the script does not
does significantly reduce the critics success.

This book was just okay. Try finding something else before you buy it. Its like a "last-resort" purchase.

really helped me with all my problems
-O.J. (last name omitted to protect anonymity.)

This short book addresses the psychological aspects of ocean voyaging. Individual chapters draw conclusions about such subjects as a skipper's leadership and the dynamics of groups confined to small spaces for long periods of time. The book intersperses essays with three famous cases of failure: the Bligh mutinies, the Apollonia murders, and the suicide of Donald Crowhurst. The authors give particular emphasis to single-handed sailing. Each chapter ends with references that can be used for further reading. This book is useful as far as it goes, but could have covered a much wider sampling of psychology at sea. The authors are very British in their outlook, saying little about non-European sailors. Except for the Bligh mutinies, the book focuses almost exclusively on the post World War Two period. One wishes that the book had addressed more voyages from the great ages of exploration.

More voyages have been brought to an abrupt end by friction among the crew than by any other problem. In spite of that, there are hundreds of books dealing with every single aspect of sailing, but, as far as I know, this is the only book that deals exclusively with that most sophisticated and delicate piece of machinery: the human mind. With a lifetime of clinical psychiatry and many years of sailing behind him, Peter Noble is in an ideal position to probe deep into the mind of the sailor and find out what makes a yacht skipper tick. Tension between captain and crew has been with us every since man first went to sea and the book draws on some famous examples in the history of seafaring to help us understand this perennial problem. All potential sources of tension are explored, from crew compatibility to watchkeeping. Having participated in, and observed, the sailing scene for many years, the author has a rich stock of valuable advice on how to run a happy ship. Peter Noble's contribution is complemented by co-author Ros Hogbin who deals with the psychological aspects of life afloat, and draws on her practical experience gained during a voyage around the world.

This highly entertaining book differs from others in the genre in that it is not a fawning fan book. It is lots of fun and very well written. Some OTR fans have slammed it for its numerous errors (and it's true; it could have used a fact checker), but Nachman is after more important game than radio trivia, and he succeeds,

But I do have to register one strong objection. It's his assesment of Eddie Cantor. Now, Cantor may indeed have been a lousy rat in his personal life, as Nachman's informants report --that I don't know about -- but the book is one hundred per cent wrong about Cantor's show (at least his show from the mid-forties on). Nachman dismisses Cantor as an essentially talentless hack, and his show as depressingly unfunny. A few years ago, back when I first read this book, I accepted Nachman's criticism as probably factual (though I did remember enjoying Cantor's movies on the late, late show many years ago). The fact is that at the time I had never heard any of Cantor's radio shows so I had nothing to compare his comments with. Then about a year ago I ran across a partial episode of one Cantor's shows. It was hilarious and made me hungry for more. A few months ago I was able to obtain six or seven dozen shows dating from WW II and later. Now, it's possible that Nachman was going by Cantor's shows from the thirtes, when radio was much different than the situation comedy oriented 1940s. Whatever the case all I can say is that going by the fifty or so shows I've heard so far, Nachman is wrong, wrong, wrong. Cantor's show is hilarious and every bit as good as Burns and Allen, Jack Benny, Phil Harris, or any other top shows of the period. The writing is first rate. Second bananas Harry von Zell and Bert Gordon as the Mad Russian are standouts, and as good as any supporting players on the other shows. Better, really. Cantor's show has quickly become one of my very favorites. My 11 year old son loves it. Even my 15 year old daughter -- the one with the metal stud in her nose -- loves the show.

So read Nachman. He's good. More important, listen to the shows yourself.

This book is an excellent overview of the world of radio. Unlike other books which tend to concentrate on only one genre (comedy, superheroes) or one type of show (Jack Benny, Fibber McGee, etc) this book covers them all. It also isn't written for the octogenarian that happens to remember when Ma Perkins was on the air. It is written as to compare it with contemporary times and people. It dares to compare Fred Allen with David Letterman and to say that the Lone Ranger was the first politically correct superhero. People who've never heard of Allen now understand his wit and talent because they know Letterman. Nachman is right on the mark with his observations and lines such as the one describing the Lone Ranger's silver bullet as the "bullet from Cartier's" are priceless.

The book doesn't quite get five stars in my opinion because of some of the (hopefully) unintentional slurs that are offered. The word "uppity" should be banished from the language, let alone be used to describe a Rochester or Beulah character. Some anti-Semitic slights can also be inferred when some negative comments about Groucho, Benny, and Burns are made, but guys like Bob Hope are OK because they are "good old americans." Again, I assume that these are unintentional, but if a WASP like me can pick up on them...

All in all, well worth the money and despite the slights, one that is difficult to put down. Hopefully one more in depth is on the way.

Regards,

Billy the Kid is one of the West's most famous outlaws, yet there is little in the history books to detail his short but very violent life. In addition, most of what has been written has been written in the later part of the 20th century and relies not so much on true knowledge as on what can be found here and there.

This book, original written in 1924, is wonderful because the author actually found people still alive who had known Billy the Kid and who had lived through the Lincoln County Wars. While these people were hardly young when interviewed, they still had very good memories of Billy and his life style. This provides a look that is often missing in history.

One area that was missing was any detailed information on the early life of Billy the Kid, but, as the author points out, much was lost and may never be known.

The language in the book is, at times, difficult to process, as it was written in the style prevalent in 1924, not 2002. And it is a language that is caught between the older American English and modern American English. Generally it is a smooth read, but does have a couple of rough spots.

This is a MUST READ if you really want to know about the portion of Billy the Kids life that ocured during the Linclon County Wars!!

THIS IS TRULY A WORK OF ART. HE BEGINS WITH THE RIVALRY BETWEEN JOHN CHIUSUM AND MAJOR A.G. MURPHY AND THE WAR THAT ESCALETS FROM THEIR RIVALRY. IT INTRODUCES WILLIAM BONNEY AS AN INNOCENT MAN WHO'S LOVE/RESPECT FOR HIS BOSS LEADS HIM TO HIS LEGENDARY LIFE AND DEATH. WRITTEN WITH PRECISE DETAIL AND ARRESTING INTENSITY.. A MUST HAVE

Four Inspirational Romance novellas by four talented Romance writers! All four stories have an animal of some sort to help bring the couples together and find love. I cannot choose which of the four I enjoyed the best. You will find humor scattered in this blend along with intense emotions. Suitable for teens and young adults to read as well.

Four Inspirational Romance novellas by four talented Romance writers! All four stories have an animal of some sort to help bring the couples together and find love. I cannot choose which of the four I enjoyed the best. You will find humor scattered in this blend along with intense emotions. Suitable for teens and young adults to read as well.

First off, I should note that I find this version of Vitruvius far more useful than many others, especially in the clearly noted diagrams, explanations of measurement units, and so forth. The editor and translators have done a good job of this aspect of Vitruvius Pollio's work.

However, the translators appear to have taken a few liberties with the text. First, since Vitruvius is a historical work as well as a canon of Classicism, an honest modern-day translation must relate not only to its period, but also to subsequent periods in order to be understood in terms of the nearer to present and Vitruvius' own time. The translators' choice of ridding the text of the translation "the Orders" for Vitruvius' original choice of "genus" is bad enough, but when you observe that this translation has been rendered as "type" instead, it has the potential of blending in with unintended references in the text to type as well as being confused with common modern/Modernist discursions into what type is. The translators should have indicated their theories about what they thought would be a correct interpretation of the Roman word "genus" at the beginning of their notes, not by making a deliberate decision to diverge from the customary content of the text.

Second, this translation appears to fail to take into account some aspects of military culture which have influenced the text. Vitruvius was a military man and although he adopted the linguistic style of Cicero in some respects (who has been accused of using two words in the place of one or even none), sometimes a distinction he makes, albeit slight, is worth noting, especially in the context of his role in the Roman military and in the context of subtle gradations of meaning being just as notable as subtle gradations in style and form.

Third, and most telling, the translators and editors have missed an opportunity to note something very useful in Vitruvius, and that is that although he understood the what of the Orders, he may not have understood the why of the Orders. In some cases, he goes to great lengths to wave hands over certain aspects of the Orders, even devolving into a Ciceronian overuse of words and dense prose, in order to pull a Wizard of Oz-like "pay no attention to the unknowns behind this concept". The translators note the fuzziness, but they don't begin to question the nature of it and as a result, they may inadvertently paint Vitruvius in a little bit better light than he may actually deserve.

Otherwise, it is a well-rendered translation, although for serious readers and researchers it should be balanced with at least one other translation, such as Morgan's translation.

As a Penn State first year architecture student I have been studying Vitruvius line by line. It is the most inspirational, thought provoking, and interesting book I have ever read. I even hold my own Vitruvian study sessions to review the material and relate all of Vitruvius's topics to the outside world not even related to architecture. If you are at all interested in architecture, construction, philosophy, or if you just want a different type of book to read I urge you to give this a try. It is truly a remarkable book that has revolutioned and standardized many architectural details.

This book was very accurate and to the point in it's time. Several of the areas described have changed substantially since the bok was first published. There were two new books published in 1996 that treat the same material in a more up to date way. Connecticut Birding Guide, Devine and Smith, and Finding Birds in Connecticut, Rosgren and Billings ISBN 96-068691.

This book begins a discussion on the the context of challengesfaced by African-American families and their relationship to clinicalinterventions that are rooted in the strengths of these families. Itis both well written and comprehensive. I will be using it in my class, "Gestalt and the African-American family," this summer. END