It's nice to see a published work of design in Atlanta... hopefully this is the beginning of more such works. Let's see some other books that cover the design community in the South!

I am reviewing the 1944 edition of this book.

This children's book does a good job of describing Dolley Madison to young people. It is an interesting blend of fact and fiction. Much of the dialogue is surely made up by the author. But the dialogue serves the purpose of showing kids what life was like for Dolley in her early years. And it provides an idea of how she may have thought as a child. This book also contains many black and white illustrations showing various events from Dolley's life.

Dolley Payne grew up on a plantation with slaves near Richmond, Virginia. Her father, John Payne, was a Quaker who fought in the Revolutionary War. After the War, Payne freed his slaves and moved the family to Philadelphia. Unfortunately, Mr. Payne was more successful with his plantation than he was as a Philadelphia businessman.

In Philadelphia, Dolley met her first husband, John Todd. Unfortunately, Mr. Todd and their baby died from yellow fever. Dolley also contracted the fever but survived.

Aaron Burr was the unlikely matchmaker who brought Dolley and James Madison together. Eventually, the couple moved to Washington, DC, from Philadelphia. Dolley acted as hostess at the White House during Jefferson's Presidency. And then she was First Lady in her own right during James Madison's Presidency. During that time she was the only First Lady who had to flee the White House because of a British invasion.

Dolley Madison was pretty, warm and cheerful. She brought happiness to many. So children and adults can both enjoy this uplifting book.

The author is to be commended for writing about a an important event in our nation's history -- the formation of the Bill of Rights -- that has to date been the subject of very few book-length studies. While I liked much of the historical account, it seems to me that the treatment of James Madison's ideas was lacking in some respects.

Goldwin argues that Madison's principal purpose in proposing the Bill of Rights was political. Madison, Goldwin says, was concerned about Anti-Federalist opposition to the Constitution and the risk that the Anti-Federalists would succeed in calling a second constitutional convention that might undo all of the important structural features of the Constitution. Goldwin believes that Madison hoped to steal the Anti-Federalists' thunder by offering amendments whose substance was uncontroversial, but whose inclusion would help solidify support for the new Constitution in a public that was still nervous about the way it centralized national power.

Goldwin reinforces his argument about Madison's political motivations by suggesting that Madison regarded a Bill of Rights as being practically useless in preventing governments from encroaching on the liberties of its citizens. Instead, according to the author, Madison thought that the structural elements of the Constitution (separation of powers, bicameral legislature, etc.) afforded the best mechanism for securing rights against infringement by the majority. Goldwin goes so far as to suggest repeatedly that Madison was willing to propose a Bill of Rights precisely because he believed it would "leave the original Constitution unchanged . . . ." (p. 101; see also p. 153).

Goldwin may be right about Madison's political motivations in proposing a Bill of Rights; others have drawn similar conclusions. But the author's positive assessment of Madison's ideas about the intrinsic inefficacy of a Bill of Rights is unpersuasive. If Madison truly believed that including specific restraints on governmental power in a written constitution would do little directly to advance the cause of freedom, and that the Constitution as originally written would serve those ends well, in my view he was fundamentally mistaken. It is certainly true that the will of the majority would be frustrated less often if we had no Bill of Rights, or if the Judiciary had no power to enforce its provisions. But it is precisely for that reason that the freedoms set forth in the Bill of Rights would have been less secure if they had never been made a part of the Constitution.

In light of the widely held contemporary view that the Bill of Rights is an essential (even if sometimes misused) restraint on governmental power, this book would have been better if, instead of uncritically praising Madison's contrary view, Goldwin had subjected it to searching analysis. Madison's view of the role of the judiciary in enforcing the Bill of Rights, a subject not even broached in this book, would in my view be central to such an analysis. Raoul Berger pointed out in an article written several years ago that during the debates over the ratification of the original Constitution in Virginia, Madison joined John Marshall (who later became Chief Justice of the Supreme Court) in maintaining that the Judiciary had this power. And in his speech to the First Congress proposing a Bill of Rights, Madison (echoing Jefferson's sentiments in a letter written to him from France) asserted that "independent tribunals of justice will consider themselves in a peculiar manner the guardians of those rights." Madison's support for some form of judicial review is also evidenced in statements he made in the Philadelphia Convention and in The Federalist Nos. 39 and 44. Since Madison believed that the courts would have a large responsibility for enforcing the Bill of Rights, then a question which needs to be addressed is why he nevertheless regarded the amendments as a mere "parchment barrier." And what makes the other, structural elements of the Constitution which Madison looked to as the main protector of our liberties (e.g., separation of powers, limitation of Congress to enumerated powers) anything more than "parchment barriers" themselves? Finally, it would have been useful to consider not only what Madison thought immediately before and after the formation of the Constitution, but also the extent to which his views may have changed as he observed the Constitution in operation over the course of his long political career.

I also think that Goldwin's insistence that both the Federalists (including Madison) and the Anti-Federalists believed that the Amendments "changed nothing in the Constitution" (p. 177) is misleading. This characterization not only distorts the views of both groups and obscures their important philosophic differences, but also trivializes the subtantive import of the Bill of Rights. How can it be said, for example, that the privilege against self-incrimination set forth in the Fifth Amendment "changed nothing," when in its absence Congress would have been able to compel the defendant to testify in a federal criminal proceeding?

I just hate to slam a book about my favorite sculptor, so I couldn't give less than three stars. Even the pictures aren't that good, many are black and white. The real irritation factor here is the author's obcession with the artist's biography. Is it so outlandish to think someone might "get" this work simply because it so strongly appeals to the human element in us all? What would all the art reviewers do if they had no access to the details of an artist's life? ...If the art journals refused to publish the "Enquirer" method of analysis and required something that was... less sensational ...more objective ...more ACCADEMIC, maybe? I'm sure Mr. Friedman meant no disrespect for Ms. von Rydingsvard, but did he mean to review the art or the artist? It is extremly patronizing that primarily female artists are subjected to this type of analysis. Let's get it together, boys!

This book is a weird attempt to reconcile the literal Fundamentalists' view of Genesis with the fossil records and other clear evidences for the theory of evolution. Instead of buying this brainwashing book, the following notes are recommended to be read.

Did a Global Flood Form the Fossil Record?

The first hypothesis considered by scientists was that the global flood described in Genesis accounted for the geological column and fossil record. Indeed, this explained the presence of fossil sea shells high in the Alps. However, as early as 1757, James Parsons and others attempted to deduce the season of the Flood from fossils. If spring, flowers and young fruit should predominate, mature fruit and nuts if fall. Alas, both were found. It was suggested that mature fruit had been mixed in from the tropics, but if so, then land and ocean animals should be mixed together as well. In fact, they are found in separate deposits, except for some land organisms that floated out to sea. These and other difficulties led scientists to accept the uniformitarian geology proposed by James Hutton (Theory of the Earth) and Charles Lyell (Principles of Geology).

The ICR model (presented in this book) is simply the same old flood theory, and it, too, fails to explain basic facts. For example, if all species were created at one time before the flood, fossils deep in the geological record (early in the flood) should be identical to later forms. Extinctions might be allowed, but no new productions. Of course, the fossil record shows both extinctions and creations, with increasingly unfamiliar animals the deeper you go. The 19th century creationist geologist Georges Cuvier proposed a number of successive creation events to account for this. The present author Henry Morris, director of the ICR, proposed in the book that the appearance of progressive change was explained by (1) elevation of habitat, (2) resistance to gravitational settling in the flood waters, and (3) ability to flee the floodwaters. However, this predicts that porpoises and ichthyosaurs, both fully-aquatic air-breathing animals of the same size, shape, and density, living in the same habitat, should be found as fossils in the same strata. In fact, there is a series of transitional forms through Mesozoic deposits leading to ichthyosaurs, overlaid by Cenozoic deposits containing a series of forms leading to porpoises. Countless other specific tests are failed by the flood hypothesis, but passed by uniformitarian geology.

(Comment by George S.Bakken, Indiana State University.)

If you want the highlights of Creation in one book, this is a good one. There are many references to tie the actual scientific evidence to the Scripture. For those Christians who have bought the science fairy tale of evolution, this will help you get back on firm footing with the truth. There are those in the end times who will "choose to be ignorant". Don't be one of those.

Very poorly orginized. Concepts are referenced before being introduced. Explanations are at best superficial. Elemental information is nonexistent. Numerous mistakes in the text and diagrams. Feels like extra information thrown just to bulk it up.

This book tries too hard to cover all aspects CNC and all types of CNC machining. It fails on both fronts. Conversational programming methods are woefully simplistic and often inaccurate. The diagrams are confusing and repetitive. There are not enough examples of actual CNC programs and proper explanations of each individual code. There are far better CNC books on the market. Anyone with no CNC background will gain little form this book. Those with CNC experience will shake their hands and correct the numerous mistakes in the text.

I am a beginer on cnc so I want you give me some detail book I can chose it Thank you for your help

This book should have been written as a joke; maybe it was. The total lack of critical or analytical thinking and logic that is contained in this piece is only exceeded by some of D. Gish's materials.

A very good book for exposing the bankrupcy of Creationist literature. The author was clearly lacking any hint of criticle thinking ability.

The book is a general overview of the importance of creation as a foundation to general theism and the Christian Gospel. It is not intended to be a "Creation Science" work in the strictest sense of the word. It is a popular treatment simply discussing its relevance to the Christian world view. The misrepresnting and ridiculing in the absence of any substantive critique is evidence that Evolutionary philosophy is much more idealogy than scientific theory.

If you are looking for a biography of James Madison, look elsewhere. Rutland's subtitle, "The Founding Father," makes it clear what this book is about: Madison's participation in the creation and passage of the constitution and the Bill of Rights. Although it does cover most of his life, the focus is definitely on Madison's role as founding father.

The book deals with the major issues of Madison's political life, often in too minute detail, but does not satisfy the biographical aspects of his life. There is absolutely no mention, for example, of Madison's birth date, or even the year he was born in! Further, the book failed completely to engage me. I set it aside for weeks at a time before I finally finished if off, despite its modest size.

I picked up this book because I was to attend a conference on Madison and wanted to know something more than the murky recollection I had from school of this less well known "founding father." I was fascinated to learn how it came to pass that after initially opposing the Bill of Rights Madison was the guy who actually got it through the first Congress. The early years were interesting, but this book rather quickly turned into a rather bewildering discussion of the ins and outs of trade with Europe and the problems that led up to the War of 1812--which sounded like a totally forgettable incident in American history. Madison was by and large an untalented president--his greatest achievements were complete by the time he was 30--the Bill of Rights and, before then, the Federalist Papers. Maybe the book went downhill with the career of its subject, but I thought the writing could have been a lot clearer and a few sentences of background information each time a new subject was introduced would have helped this book alot.

not like Jefferson & Hamilton or celebrated like Washington & Franklin. My fellow reviewers seemed disappointed in this as a biography. But it was not Mr. Rutland's goal to write a personal story of Mr. Madison's life although his later years were covered quite well. I am glad however, I took the easy way out by listening to the audio version (unedited). As if I was in Mr. Rutland's class as he was giving a lecture. The years after The Revolutionary War, The Federalist Papers, The Constitution & The Bill of Rights, are the real meat of this book. Madison's behind the scenes leadership in Congress was consummate. If we do not appreciate how important he was 200 years later, it seems that he contemporaries did. To his sorrow he was, with Jefferson, responsible for creating the two party system we now operate under. That he wanted to heed Washington's advice against the party system is evident. But he found this advice quickly outdated. As a result Washington, & to a lesser extent Adams were the only unaffiliated presidents in our history. Happily, none of this two-party stuff is cluttering up our Consititution. As Secretary of State under Jefferson & President on his own he was unremarkable. Any one could have mucked things up as well as he did. Indeed his best years were his early years. What seemed to me remarkable was the love, respect & friendship that existed between Madison & Jefferson all of their adult lives. It was an alliance of two great men that never wavered & recreated the "republican" type government of ancient Greece. Mr Rutland was obviously impressed by this relationship & alludes to it several times. I appreciate biographies that teach me something about history I didn't know. How great is this book? Hard to say. But it fit the bill.

I was just looking around for something intersting, something just to read. Then one day my mother came in with this book that they had given to her, I saw the cover and thought this wasn't my kinda book, after leaving it on top of my t.v for a few weeks I decided to see what it was about, I picked it up and started reading, soon I couldn't put it down. This book is the kind of book that puts you in the front seat and makes you realize how much it can hurt to loose someone you deeply love. It kinda makes you wonder how bad that feeling is, and not wanting to but having to let go, of falling in love so deeply but just knowing that it just can't be, and that it has to not be. It's just a book you can read to pass the time, and to learn form someone else's point of view. If you like these kind of stories, this one is one to read.

I just finished reading my copy of St. James' book a few hours ago and in all honesty I'm not completely sure how to feel. The writing of Jana St. James is actually very good; descriptive with lots of detail, and the emotions that she and Waller feel are written so clearly/elonquently that we can feel what they felt as if we were there with them or it was one of us in this situation. But, like the other reviewers, I too am confused as to why she would bring all this out in the open twentysomething years later when the affair is so long over. Why would she do that when he's moved on with his wife Georgia, and he and Georgia are obviously happy, knowing that the publication of this novel could do damage to their relationship? It's almost as if St. James wants to stir up trouble. If she really felt the need to write about this time in her life to get it out of her system, she should have written this book exactly as she has done-except write it as a novel, with ficticious names/characters. However the writing is good, as I said before, and she writes about the emotions well, making her story all too believable. Three stars is about the fairest review I can give this book.

I read the book in one sitting, I could not tear myself away. I felt like I was there, I could feal all the love and emotions. Memories of Madison County is at the top of my favorite list, I haven't read a book this good in along time. Thank You

This book is a disgrace. It's sad to see that any woman would stoop to such a low level as to publicly humiliate herself as well as a well-known author!

I understand that she had an affair with him, but that's it...AN AFFAIR! Get over it !!! It was an dumb-affair. I'm sure that Ms. St. James wasn't so young that she didn't realize what she was getting into!

I just think that it's sad and this book did nothing, but turn a memory of a romance (affair or not) into something that the public didn't need to know about!

Thanks...I'm done!

I was excited to find these tapes at my library and kept waiting for the "magical" love to reveal itself as it did in Waller's novel. Instead, I was told all sorts of "filler", such as what Jana St. James was wearing and what she ate each day. An unbelievable amount of extraneous material to blow smoke over her THIN story about an average affair initiated by a married man. One can only feel sorry for Waller's wife Georgia, learning what her husband was doing the night they gave birth to their daughter. Much wishful thinking on the part of St. James: I didn't see ANY parallels with Madison County, the novel, except that the characters had sex.

Certainly there are parallels to the love story in Bridges of Madison County, however this is a story of two young people who under different circumstances would likely have ended up together. There love seemed genuine but impossible. This is an easy read - and unlike the other reviewer, I do not judge Jana or Bob. As unfortunate as it sounds - affairs do happen.