The character of the Paladin is just a soldier doing his job. The monster in this book is Owl, who justifies any number of crimes he forces the young hero to commit "for England." Of course assassinating enemy personnel is no shock during war, but the early sequences where Paladin is ordered to murder a bunch of English and Dutch citizens (including a young woman) who have totally unwittingly stumbled onto an important war secret are repugnant and insane in their rationalization. Apparently Owl had never heard of the word "internment" until Churchill himself points out how such things should be handled. Also, please enjoy the part where English commandos in training are ordered to practice their killings techniques on German POWs. Poor Owl missed his calling -- he would have been right at home in the Gestapo.

The Paladin is supposedly a novel based on facts, as told to the author by "Christopher Creighton." Creighton, the paladin, was recruited as a teenage boy by Winston Churchill during WWII and sent around the world on missions of state -- usually violent missions. The premise of this novel seemed very appealing to me, as I am a big fan of WWII novels. However, overall, I was disappointed in this novel. To me, the book reads more like a CHRONICLE of Creighton's individual, exciting missions rather than a good NOVEL. I found the book just adequate (at best) in terms of plot development, character development (particularly regarding the secondary characters), and believable dialogue. There's no question that the missions Creighton supposedly carried out for his country were extremely heroic. If these supposedly previously untold missions were written as a non-fiction historical biography about Creighton, I would have had different expectations going in and might have enjoyed the book more. In a good novel, however, as mentioned, I'm looking for more than just an interesting chronicle of facts.

I think this book is the best one I've ever read, although it may not be true and the hero's name is not Cristopher Creighton I still enjoy the book all the same. I also am amazed on how well it tied in with acual history.

John Charmley did not do his homework. There are so many things about Churchill he missed. He greatly understates his case that Churchill, by fighting World War II, lost Britain's empire. Far from being a vigorous and foresighted leader, Churchill was incredibly lazy and inept, and Charmley misses this. Churchill failed to prevent the spread of television, failed to stop the invention of the transistor and the integrated circuit, was completely asleep at the switch during the invention of the jet engine and the intercontinental jet airliner. And these are only a few of the things that Churchill didn't stop! Of course, it was these, combined with the continued outward spread of the Enlightenment from Europe, that lost Britain its empire. So, if the lost empire is the "fruit" of Churchill's leadership, at least let's be complete in our condemnation of the man. Otherwise, he might be seen as a leader of bottomless courage, able to inspire an entire nation to rise above itself and distinguish itself for all time, while in the bargain saving Western Civilization. Churchill knew evil when he saw it. Given how difficult it was to launch the D-Day invasion, the mind boggles at what would have happened had Britain gone down.

I was sorely disappointed when finishing the book, not because of poor authorship, but, on the contrary, because Charmley's abrupt ending after a laborious examination of Churchill's political career did not seem at all adequate. He begins with a lurid examination of Churchill's early life and transformation into a political maverick, assaying his beginnings as a freshman MP in 1901 to his rise as one of the most powerful statesmen in the world. Among the most engrossing, although not necessarily new, criticisms are the Prime Minister's deference to the Roosevelt administration's foreign policy, which the author believes, with very much justification, was a catalyst that helped to bring about the Cold War and the eventual dismemberment of the British Empire. Charmley also draws parallels with Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler in 1938 with that of Churchill's handling of Stalin in 1945, and infers Churchill was hypocritical in his criticism of the Munich Pact, in part because of his later policies with regard to the Soviet Union. But after the chapter on the fall of the Churchill government in 1945, the book wraps itself up with a conclusion of little more than two pages; this is hardly befitting such a monumental undertaking. Charmley does not take interest in documenting Churchill's postwar exploits, and makes almost no reference to his Fulton speech or his return to power in 1951. For those already familiar with the standard "song and dance" given by most Churchill biographers, this work is definitely worth your time, but those expecting a more plenary reference on all of Churchill's political career, not just that until 1945, should look elsewhere.

I think people of European descent should ask the question too often avoided by "respectable" intellectuals. Was the destruction of much of Europe and the conservative forces there worth the price of defeating Hitler? In point of fact, once the liberal democracies decided to confront the evil Nazi regime, it was too late. Along with the defeat of Hitler, the anti-communist conservative Christians, who were no friend of Hitler, were mortally wounded. Decent conservatives ended up powerless. The radical socialists in the West crept into power inexorably. The end of a war that saw American involvment only ended up paving the way for an even more evil communist regime in the East and the complete evisceration of Christian Europe. Keep in mind that the "victory" over Germany meant fighting another 45 years of global cold war whose total destructiveness probably exceeds that of WW II itself. Charmley dares to suggest that Churchill, a Christian, was completely out of his depth when he tried to match wits with the Roosevelt administration...an administration that trusted Stalin more than Churchill. The truth hurts. In hindsight, it is clear that the USA is not the torchbearer of Western Civilization, however you may define it. We are the torchbearer of something entirely different...a relentless democratic egalitarianism propelled by the power of free market enterprise. Charmley is passionate about this subject, and is saddened by the downfall of a Europe which he feels was betrayed by poor leadership and myopic statesmanship. The feckless Europe of today is the result, and we may be witnessing the final decades of what was once known as Western Civilization. What will it be replaced by?

The author's do not incude one fragment of testimony from Garwood's other American POWs who later testified against him at his court martial where he was convicted of being a turncoat traitor. This is nothing but a collection of half truths and fabracations.

So you've read the Hanoi Hilton stories; you know, the ones where the noble American pilots are tortured but do a pretty good job of 'keeping the faith' and sticking together. Well, this book will give you a different view: let's meet some American enlisted men in a jungle POW camp turning on eachother and acting like amimals. Some might find this shocking. Apart from telling the almost unbelievable story of an eccentric American defector, this book allows you to become a jungle captive and experience all the wretched elements that fate entails. In all fairness, I'm sure all soldiers--Americans or otherwise--DO NOT act this under extreme duress. By the way, this book WAS made into a movie and it was TERRIBLE. I think the Karate Kid guy played Garwood.

Truth is stranger than fiction. This young man, a PFC in his spit & polish uniform, 45 on his belt, a relatively new man in the motorpool goes to a remote spot to wait for his passenger and is captured by the Viet Cong. From his attire they decide he must be an important U.S. officer. (He was waiting for one). For a year he lives in a one man cage in the jungle rotting in his own filth before he is ever spoken to. Finally another prisoner arrives who is an officer and has the ability to speak Vietnamese and is an expert on survival. This young man probably believes that the officer is God. He takes every word as gospel. Another prisoner joins the team and the triangle puts some pressure on the relationships. They learn everything they can to try to survive. Escape attempts finally result in the slow and painful death of the Mentor officer. As the population grows, more complications arise in the relationships. After years of living like this newcomers assume that the young man is Vietnamese because of his language, demeanor, and the fact that he lives separately and has freedom to move about the camp in trustee fashion. And this is just the beginning of the story - his adventures continue for many years and the story takes interesting twists and turns ending up in a courtroom drama. Why this isn't a major motion picture I don't understand. Read this book. In fact - read all Winston Groom books they are fantastic.

This book has good examples that one can use to get up and going with basic to intermediate financial models. If you have to start somewhere, this is certainly it.

This book does what it says it does in the title. It is a hand-on, step-by-step guide to constructing spreadsheet models to assist with decision making. The book guides the reader through intermediate to advanced modelling topics and is written at a level that is accessable to the novice and intermediate user. Advanced users are probably already familiar with the techniques presented.

Someone interested in the tiresome advanced mathematics behind the models should look instead to academic journals . . . someone interested in APPLYING that stuff to something useful should consider this book.

The book provides step-by-step method to guide you to build financial models for your company. Once you understand the basic foundation, you could use the tools to build more complex models.

I can't believe the American Heart Association produces this book. As a recently diagnosed heart patient, sodium is a primary concern of mine. This book's title is terribly misleading--just because you don't add salt, doesn't mean there's not sodium in other ingredients. The recipes in this book are not any better than most of the recipes in our Better Homes and Gardens cookbook. Just because the title says no salt, doesn't mean that these recipes will reduce your sodium intake. Browse and compare the recipes to those of other cookbooks with nutritional information. The AHA should be ashamed of itself. I recommend Gazzaniga's No-Salt, Lowest Sodium cookbook.

I was looking for a cookbook with relatively light, relatively low-fat recipes. This book delivered what I was looking for, but nothing more. Some of the recipes are good, but some tend to be a little bland and somewhat involved to prepare.

Over-salted food is everywhere and one reason people get too much salt in their food is that many "cooks" think seasoning is salting.

This book has a wide variety of great tasting, healthy recipes. Anyone interested in becoming a good cook can use it to learn how to really season foods.

The book is a boon to those who know they need to lower their salt and a good idea for those who don't know it yet.

The book covers a hot topic, but since the software does not load it's a waste of time. The book should supplement the software for risk anaysis, but with no software this book is a complete waste of money and should not be on the market.

I rated this book earlier as "a reader from Spokane Wa.". I wish to append the earlier statement, and add that you can get current a demo version of @Risk software from Palisade that is outstanding. I was so impressed that I purchased @Risk 4.0 from them, and subsequently ordered a number of other books by Wayne Winston, as well. I think that it would be only fair to retract most of my earlier statement. I understand that they are intending to soon publish a 2nd release of the book with updated software.

Readers should note that until 11/2000 Simulation Modeling Using @RISK was shipped with an older version of the @RISK software. Customer reviews that reference software problems are all reviews of this older edition of the book. The current edition ships with @RISK 4.0; software that supports all newer versions of Excel and Windows. The text has been entirely updated to reflect this newest version of @RISK.

Positives: the book is light, easy to read, and contains a few amuzing historical anecdotes from Churchill's life. That's it.

Negatives: it is not a good biography of Churchill, nor a good book on leadership. The author isn't anyone who'd known Churchill closely enough for his "analysis" to be of any value. Neither is he a manager. The author is a writer who must sell books in order to make a living. Please proceed with that in mind.

The book is not wholly bad and would qualify as decent airplane reading, but no more than that.

I read this book without having known anything about Chruchill, as a lesson on leadership under stress. I learned a lot, but I also became very interested in the man. He is fasinating and very brave. I'm very gald I read this book.

The main idea is to study how Churchill made his leadership decicions, and what the reason for that decision was. It's an informative study of the man, and even funny at times. It's always entertaining, but somewhat short of a great story (so 4 stars).

By all means read this book. It's a great way to begin to learn about Churchill, aside from the 3 or 6 volume works available at the bookstore. It's also a good study on decision making based on principles and honest living, strength, and forward thinking. There are good lessons here as well a good reading. I recommend it highly.

I have been a manager for over 10 years, and have worked in different industries and different countries. And I gladly admit I still have a lot to learn concerning management. This book talks about concepts we know we should all be applying, such as learning from mistakes, responsibility and organization, attention to details as well as to a master plan, communication, etc. However understanding how Churchill put these concepts to work is fascinating. I did not know that much about Churchill in the first place, perhaps that is why I enjoyed the book so much. It is a nice change from CEOs' biographies. And yes, I am putting some of what I read to work, so it was worth my time and money !

Tabloids announce Ryan Shughnessy as an "eminently available hunk," resulting in single women with the appropriate breeding frequently introducing themselves. Jessie Reilly scoffs during their monthly lunch, musing who would have ever "thought the skinny kid next door would grow up to be an 'eminently available hunk?'" Ryan does not intend to stay single long, however, when he learns of Jessie's plans regarding artificial insemination. Her biological clock is ticking and Mr. Right has neglected to put in an appearance.

Ryan has always wanted children, but gave up the possibility when his wife was unable to become pregnant. Now widowed, he finds the idea of Jessie turning to a sperm bank incomprehensible. So he persuades her that they have the same goals in life. If she wants a child, he'll provide the sperm. When she makes it through the first trimester, then they will get married. Seems simple enough, until emotional ramifications set in -- extreme morning sickness, as well as the usual challenges when two people are wild about one another, but neither being willing to become vulnerable enough to share their feelings.

BILLIONAIRE BACHELORS: RYAN begins with a bang, but ends with a gurgle. The premise of two friends marrying to have children via artificial insemination makes for a fascinating premise. However, I'm unconvinced with how this plot plays out. This couple agrees that they want a real marriage complete with sex. She needs a loan from a bank to expand and keep with the competition, admitting that if she didn't have to spend the money at the clinic, she could afford to expand her gallery. Now, if they know they are going to bed together, they agree they are going to get married when she gets pregnant, and they know that they both want children, why in the world go through the whole artificial insemination process? Nevertheless, Anne Marie Winston is a gifted author, with a crisp writing style and believable dialogue. Her characterizations are delightful, especially the gay houseman. As a result, I still recommend BILLIONAIRE BACHELORS: RYAN.

This book was very interesting but I think it could have been better. Anne Marie Winston is one of my favorite authors. But I don't think she did her best on this book. It was a littel to wordy in the begining but near the middle it got better.

Jessie and Ryan have been friends almost their entire lives. Ryan is a widower and rich and successful. Jessie is single and struggling to keep her business afloat. But she wants a baby. She decides to ask her friend Ryan to be the donor for the sperm. He balks at first, but agrees on one condition: that they marry. She is reluctant, but eventually agrees but only if she gets pregnant. She does, and at this point, the story becomes fast paced and races to the inevitable end...they find love and happiness.
It was a good story. Much better than the usual sperm donation and let's get married books out there. Anne Marie Winston knows how to keep a reader immersed in her books, and this did not fail.
The only complaint I have is that the characters themselves seemed incomplete to me. Although their families and lives when they were young are discussed, I did not really feel like I could understand their motives. If Ryan had loved Jessie for so long, why did he not say so earlier?
But this is a minor issue with me and did not diminish my enjoyment of the book. For a quick read, I recommend this.

The book over stated and recounted the same infractions over and over. Always comparing one modification to the one in the previous chapters.
It would have been nice if NASCAR would have let the author maybe list a chapter from modification that teams have tried to get pst NASCAR and didnt. Plus the fines.

Tom Jensen authors this overdue look at the "black art" of cheating in NASCAR, and along the way manages a decent job of seperating fact from fiction. He delves into the acts of cheating in the sport from its beginnings (when apparant Grand National winner Glenn Dunaway was disqualified and the race win went to Jim Roper) through the 1990s into the 21st century.

Three cheating scandals stand out here, and all three involve teams owned by Junior Johnson. If there is a theme to this book, it is that Junior Johnson was the sport's most dishonest team owner. The first was the 1973 National 500 at Charlotte. Cale Yarborough won the race, but his car and second-place Richard Petty were protested by Bobby Allison. An extremely long tear-down took place, and NASCAR ultimately said the race results would stand - which led Allison to file a lawsuit against NASCAR, because there was evidence that Cale's Chevrolet, wrenched by Johnson, ran some 70 cubic inches more than allowed by the rules.

If there is an eye-opener in this book, it is the admission by Junior's engine builder at the time, Robert Yates, that that particular engine and others built for Junior were indeed illegal; Yates states it measured 500 CID, versus the 431 limit of the time. Actually, though, Yates' admission isn't a surprise, as former crew chief J.C. "Jake" Elder stated in several 1990s interviews that Junior's crew chief Herb Nab acknowledged to him that Junior usually ran illegal displacement in his engines.

The second involves the infamous "Pettygate" Charlotte race of 1983. Jensen doesn't delve into any new ground here, which is a shortfall, because there was more to that scandal than is usually acknowledged. Petty's team had won twice in 1983 but had struggled against Johnson and also the DiGard Racing team headed by Gary Nelson (and powered by Yates) in horsepower (Jensen deals at insufficient length with cheating by Gary Nelson with DiGard and other teams elsewhere in the book), and Maurice Petty built (and readily acknowledged after the race) a 381 CID engine. What is underappreciated is that Petty beat Junior's driver Darrell Waltrip - because Waltrip backed off in Turn Two and let Petty take a big lead. There was speculation then and later that Waltrip was also running more CID than allowed, and given Yates' and Herb Nab's admissions there is no reason not to believe that Waltrip usually ran illegal displacement.

It is a shame because it tarnishes the accomplishments of Waltrip (a great driver despite also being overrated as such) and also Cale Yarborough (a superior driver incapable of being overrated), who won the majority of his races (55 of 83 career wins) and all three of his titles in Johnson racecars. It also puts a period to NASCAR's long-running practice of being more nitpicky to certain teams over others (notably Johnson's), notably Petty Enterprises, Wood Brothers Racing, Ranier Racing, Bill Elliott's racing team, Hoss Ellington Racing (whose owner cheated mostly for fun and readily admitted such), and (somewhat ironic given how much success they enjoyed) DiGard Racing (one of the most revealing such episodes involved Bumpergate at Daytona in 1982; NASCAR made Gary Nelson lower the rear bumper on the DiGard car to increase drag; Nelson angrilly had it slapped on with insecure fasteners to fall off on the track; he denies that he had it deliberately slapped on to fall off during a race, but there is no reason to believe him); this nitpickery practice does continue today, though at a far less blatant level.

Another who got a lot more than his fair share of NASCAR nitpickery was Harry Hyde, whose cars won the 1970 title with Bobby Isaac and whose cars were regularly torn down more thoroughly than most, such as in the scandal-plagued '73 National 500; Hyde's car was torn down four times during the weekend and when NASCAR demanded another teardown, he refused and was disqualified. Hyde also got swept into the Nitrousgate scandal of 1976; after Daytona 500 qualifying his Dodge was found with a moveable flap on the radiator, which allowed air to flow more efficiently and increase aero slickness; the flap met the letter of NASCAR's rulebook but amid the discovery of speed-enhancing nitrous oxide bottles on several cars, NASCAR ruled it didn't meet the spirit.

Nitpickery shows in a recent area dealt with by Jensen - the "Tiregate" New Hampshire 300 of late August 1998. On final stops with some 73 laps to go Jeff Gordon took two tires to the four taken by Mark Martin, John Andretti, and others (this was when tires were much softer and wore more easily than in 2001-2, when Goodyear went with compounds of such hardness that wear became almost impossible); under such circumstances Gordon should have been swamped by cars with four fresh tires, but instead he outpulled the cars on four fresh tires and easily won a race he had not run all that competitively in throughout that day.

Jensen details the inaccuracy of claims by Jack Roush of chemical treatment of tires by Ray Evernham, but ignores that this was a red herring to begin with - the real issue being Goodyear playing favorites on tires, a practice angrilly noted a year later by team owner Andy Petree in a spat over lack of access to Goodyear tires for much-needed test sessions, and also briefly discussed by Geoff Bodine in Shaun Assael's superb NASCAR book "Wide Open: Days & Nights On The NASCAR Trail."

The third big scandal discussed in the book was Jimmy Spencer's two restrictor plate victories of 1994; once again, we have a cheating scandal involving Junior Johnson racecars. In fairness to Spencer, comments about his ability by Jeff Gordon's stepdad John Bickford (made in naturally fawning comparison to Gordon's ability) are a little out of line, as Spencer had shown superb drafting ability years earlier in Travis Carter's Chevrolet and showed it again in Dick Moroso's Grand National Ford, Travis Carter's Winston-sponsored Fords, and James Finch's Grand National Pontiacs.

Regardless, it should be clear that Spencer's two Winston Cup wins were achieved with an illegal restrictor plate manifold; that it could have escaped NASCAR pre-race inspection is not as difficult as Jensen implies at points, given the ingenuity of raceteams.

One area where Jensen could have set the record straight but does not even discuss is suspicion about the 1984 Firecracker 400. During "The Call" mini-controversy of 1995 there was some question about the legality of Richard Petty's 200th win, about how the engine supposedly was over the limit on displacement. There ought to be no question about the legality of that win or all but one or two other Petty wins, given how NASCAR scrutinized his cars more than most, how Petty did not show more horsepower than race favorite Cale Yarborough (Petty won on superior handling and the car's better drafting ability; Cale's Ranier Chevrolets of the time were noticably inferior in handling than Petty's Pontiacs or Bobby Allison's Buicks), and also how the Pettys had feuded with NASCAR's France family almost from the beginning, making claims of a "Call" going to him implausible. Jensen likewise should have noted that in the '73 controversy Petty readily admitted running a mixture of engine cylinders of varying displacements - a few over the legal limit, several well under it, for an average within the rules. As Bobby Allison himself noted during the Pettygate scandal, "Richard shoots straighter than most."

In all, though, the book is worth having for providing information on a "black art" in NASCAR racing. Jensen provides a look at the psychology of cheating when he notes Darrell Waltrip's infamous 1976 quip, "If you don't cheat, you look like an idiot; if you cheat and don't get caught, you look like a hero; if you cheat and get caught, you look like a dope."

I thought the book was fascinating, even though I know little about cars and even less about NASCAR. It details how drivers, mechanics, and/or team owners have either attempted to skirt the NASCAR rules or even thumbed their noses at NASCAR officials, all to get a slight competitive edge on the rest of the racing field, and the book spans from the humble beginnings of NASCAR to the present-day sports juggernaut that NASCAR has become. Jensen's writing style is such that even those who do not have a great understanding of automobile mechanics can visualize just what alterations are being made to the vehicles, and he is consistent in explaining clearly just what advantage those alterations might give the drivers. To see the book solely as a history of how NASCAR participants have attempted to get a couple of extra miles per hour, miles per gallon, or laps on a set of tires does not do the work justice, though. It is also a case-study in risk-taking behavior as the book's subjects can be seen and heard, in their own words, weighing the benefits of winning versus the consequences of getting caught playing outside the rules and existing in the political arena which governs both. I would recommend this book to anyone who enjoys competition.

As I read the author's account of Superman Churchill, passing lightly over Churchillean stumbles such as putting Britain on the gold standard, Gallipoli, holding badly needed troops in northern Norway, etc., I realized I was reading hagiography and not history. The abhorrence of unpleasant stuff extends to Hitler. It's hard to believe that anyone could write a book about the dictator and never even mention the Holocaust, but Strawson did, without explanation or apology. I'm surprised he didn't omit World War II.

I am a Churchill admirer and was anxiously to read Strawson's book. I was a bit disappointed once I finished it. I had hoped for a detailed description - by a military man - of the war and Churchill's and Hitler's role leading their nations. Strawson spends almost half of the book "setting up" the war. This may be a good tack for those who might not know much about the background of the two protaganists. But, if you do know anything about Churchill's and Hitler's youth and rise this is needless filler. Also, Strawson seems to draw quite extensively from Isiah Berlin's "Churchill in 1940" and Allan Bullock's "Hitler" as sources. Having read both I am a little disconcerted that Berlin's work (a short but brilliant monograph) figures so prominently. And although Bullock's work is also well done, there are other superb Hitler biographies - like Joachim Fest's. I am additionally disappointed that Strawson's editors did not put full citations in the work - as foot or endnotes. Overall, this book didn't give me all I wanted. But, it is an admirable effort by an aging general who wants to leave his mark on modern military history.

this book does a fairly good job in paralleling the lives of hitler and churchill.the authors objectivity,however is clouded by his unbridled admiration for churchill.i was a bit disappointed in this because in order to get the full flavor of a person a balance of negatives and positives must be met.yet i admire the authors military acuman.he tells a good one of the north african campaign how the british rolled up the italian army,capturing no less than 10 divisions only to be repelled by rommels panzer forces.one of the best parts of the book to me was when the author did a comparison of leadership and temperaments between rommel and montgomery.he did a good job in explaining the might of the german army,and how it was developed in the 1930's.indeed one is left with the impression that german leaders like rommel and guderian were among the most innovative of the war.the author illustrates how hitler though a master of stragedy and creating bold concepts,gave in to his megalomania,and eventually lead the wehrmact to disaster.stalingrad is a case in point.overall i enjoyed the book, particularly the battle of britain, and despite the possibility of imminent invasion,churchill was eager to get the british back on the offensive.this book makes clear how important the meditterean was to the british empire.for history buffs this book may be a revisit of old territory.yet for students of military history this book is worth a read because he describes several of the campaigns so well,like the allied landing in anzio, and how general lucas waffled;blowing the allies chance of walking into rome with little german resistance.still this book disappointed me in one respect.the author fails to explain how hitler became the monster who caused the death of millions.there is little description of his childhood.