The previous reviewers have lauded this college textbook for its accessibility and lucidity. I do not disagree with that assertion. In fact, I would go even farther to say that this book insults the intelligence of any college student who chooses to read it. The book cannot be, by any reasonable definition, considered 'academic'. Indeed, the level of written panders to the dumb and leaves the rest of us wondering about assumptions that are left unanswered. Morever, the book makes bizzare definitions of intuitive terms such as 'family' without qualifying any of its assertions.

Perhaps the worst part of the book isnt even its fault. Sociology is an inherently collectivist discipline. Thus, by nature it is extremely left-leaning. That intrinsic bias in the field maps out directly onto the ideology of the book. The book contually victimizes whoever the oppressed group du jour may be -- whether it be minorities (but not asians, god forbid), gays and lesbians, the poor etc. etc. The book teaches liberal dogmas as doctrine and consequently, does not even consider any potential objections to them. In particular, in discussing public policy, the book mentions the fallacy of "blaming the victim", whereby a bystander blames whoever these "victims" may be for their situation. This presupposes that these people are victims. Instead, victimhood is blindly asserted, and the fallacy is paralleled to a situation where one would blame a rape victim for being overly showy. From neo-marxism, to cultural relativism, to its unfair and tilted view of capitalism, this book fails as an academic text. No wonder people who leave academia with a liberal arts background invariably are liberal. If you want liberal dogma as well as the state of the intelligentsia in a nullshell, read this book. if you want a balanced view of the social sciences as an engaging and balanced text, don't.

This book was required for a sociology course I took in college, and I have to say I wasn't very excited about sociology, but this book made the course interesting - it's very readable, up-to-date and uses many examples of sociology in action. It also has lots of pictures and charts to add interest. The companion website is also a good resource for additional information as well as practice quizzes. All in all an excellent text book.

My intro Sociology class required that I pick this up. Although there are newer editions now, there weren't at the time. Henslin should be considered a well-rounded expert in his field. I have accumulated numerous credit hours and in all of them, I have had maybe 4 books that I liked to read. Personal anecdotes and individual reflections and examples make this book easy reading. The easier it is, the better you can soak up the info. Bravo. I'd suggest to any Soc. prof that they use this book!

Poorly researched, poorly writen, this could have been a great book. It deals with two interesting and misrepresented characters, but in a way that sheds no new information or insight into the men or the time they lived in. A great many factual errors in the book.

I'm so glad I ran across this book about Christie and Procter. This is fascinating Cherokee history. I recommend it!

Phillip W. Steele's engaging volume documents the lives and struggles of Ned Christie and Ezekiel Proctor, who fought to preserve their Indian heritage and culture against the wave of white men and the power of the United States government.
Steele's powerfully written documentary of this turbulent era in America's history reveals the factual,specific, and somewhat obscure details of the lives of Proctor and Christie and their eventual demise. Steele has written difinitively and interestingly, weaving the facts with the emotional impact that only truth can evoke. "The Last Cherokee Warriors" is a book you will not want to put down!

This book was on the required reading for my English Graduate School Comprehensive Exams in the area on Literary Criticism. Brian Mcrea thoroughly repeats his same point several times within this text almost to the level of a reader's perplexity with his obsessive observations concerning the change in the world between the seventeeth to the eighteenth century literary styles and the postmodern era up until our current time. Certainly it is not surprising news to any English graduate student that Addison and Steele are no longer the literary icons for journalistic and literary practices used in the late 20th and beginning of the 21st centuries. For forty dollars, however, you get alot of repetition of Mcrea's observations on this "phenomenom."

This book is a good source of information by the author as objective member of a university English Department in the fragmented postmodern modern world of today. Professional expectations and specialized suject areas now dominate the scene for graduate studies and new professors. McCrea relates the loss of interest in the public literary style Addision and Steel as members of the current literary canon and critical reviews which have dwindled to significanty none at all in periodicals since 1957. He traces the history of the canon back to the seventeenth century London and proceeds to Saussaure and Derrida as the leaders in the study of the new literary criticism and its canon in the twentieth and tweny-first century. Most of his comments are of interest historically and socially in respect to literature and its ever growing but selective group of isolated critics who only entertain a narrow and main focus of study. Is Derrida right, wrong, or both? This question gets a bit confusing in the last chapter on the New York mutes who are "signing" as they communicate enthuisiastically inside a restaurant as McCrea and his children watch. Is Derrida wrong, or is writing insubordinated by a system of signs that do not indicate the signified? Read this book for McCrea's comments that may initiate some questions of your own questions concerning the democratization of literature by the postmodern critics and new English Department professionalism.

Flatly written and repetitive, this book misses many chances to illuminate the life and work of one of the most significant public intellectuals between the 1930s and the 1980s. Jumonville keeps calling Commager a Jeffersonian liberal but seems to have no idea about the difference between Jefferson's thought and the way that thought was understood in the era of the New Deal. Also, though Jumonville stresses that Commager used history to justify political arguments, he is silent on Commager's place in the 1960s controversy about historians writing contemporary history, on which Commager wrote extensively.

The sad thing is that this book is just scholarly enough to seem to occupy the field, but not scholarly enough to be the treatment that the subject deserves

In 1950, Henry Steele Commager was one of the best-known and most widely-read historians in the United States, and he would eventually be honored with over 40 honorary degrees. Today, he is virtually unknown to the public and, I dare say, is rarely read even by professionals in his field, American intellectual history. What a difference 50 years makes in the life of a historian's reputation and influence! The explanation may lie in part in a useful distinction, drawn early by Neil Jumonville, professor of history at Florida State University, between scholars, who write for professional audiences, and intellectuals, who write for the general public. Jumonville makes clear that Commager trained to be a scholar but, notwithstanding long appointments at New York University, Columbia University, and Amherst College, spent a good part of his career practicing as an intellectual. As a result, he was very popular in his own time but had relatively little lasting influence on scholars in his field.

Jumonville takes Commager's life from birth to burial in this wide-ranging and solid, if not entirely stimulating, biography. The ultimate issue for any biographer of Commager is: Why did he become passé, even while he was still teaching and writing? (Commager died at the age of 95 in 1998.) Jumonville posits several explanations for Commager's quick descent from national authority to obscurity. The first is that much of Commager's scholarly work had encyclopedic breadth but lacked analytic depth; his opinions and judgments were intuitional rather than carefully deductive and simply have not withstood the test of time. Second and not unrelated, Commager clearly, if unconsciously, showed a preference for being prolific rather than profound. His insistence upon writing, lecturing, and speaking to a large audience, largely for financial reasons, enhanced his popularity but may have contributed to limiting the impact he made on his professional peers. According to Jumonville: "Commager as a popularizer was not a major influence on the direction taken by intellectual historians." Although Commager aspired to recognition for a high level of scholarship, "he was not a research scholar." Commager preferred anecdotes, biographical sketches, and narrative over searching analysis. According to Jumonville: "Many historians felt [Commager's] work lacked appropriate sophistication." Third, some historians clearly resented the "breezy manner" in which Commager wrote, although that was not necessarily a criticism. Commager believed that "history is a branch of literature," and even critics of the substance of his oeuvre tended to admire his style. Fourth and finally, I believe, is the fact that he lost his intellectual curiosity and ceased to read his professional peers, which is an essential activity for scholars in any field. In the middle decades of the century, Commager was nationally known as an activist in "liberal Left politics." In particular, Commager was an outspoken foe of McCarthyism, and this brought him into sustained conflict with conservative commentators. (William F. Buckley once inquired, puckishly if not maliciously, whether Commager's middle name was a tribute to Stalin. It was, instead, a family name.) Later, Commager was an energetic critic of the Vietnam War, and he tended to be sympathetic to the student protesters of the 1960s. One of the issues which Jumonville attempts to address is whether Commager was a consistent Jeffersonian liberal. In my opinion, Jumonville spends too much time attempting to locate Commager along the liberal-conservative political continuum, although, in fairness to the author, Commager spent a lot of time thinking about it, too. This exercise would be profitable if it were necessary to explicate hidden biases, but Commager was an outspoken liberal in most senses of the mid-20th century use of that term. Furthermore, it also must be noted that, although Commager enjoyed engaging in public discourse about contemporary issues, his scholarly books were not partisan. Is professionalism in the writing of history inconsistent with partisan advocacy in public discourse? Or, as Jumonville puts, it: Must there be a clear dividing line between "the role of the historian as a scholar and as an activist intellectual"? Commager's life indicates that the answer is: Not necessarily. But, in purely practical terms, there may simply not be enough hours in the day to perform both functions well. Time magazine criticized one of Commager's books for lacking in thoroughness and suggested that he was a dilettante. That was unfair, but the tendency to write and speak glibly, which punditry requires, does not serve the scholar well because depth of insight is what proves the professional historian's mettle. Jumonville's Commager is likeable, if somewhat eccentric. When friends were invited to his home to dine, his wife entertained them during the cocktail hour, while Commager continued to work, and, when dinner was served, Commager joined them for the meal and conversation, invariably with himself as chief conversationalist. Although he was an energetic teacher, he rarely learned the names of his students. And I especially enjoyed the anecdote during which Commager was arguing with a colleague about the author of a line of Scottish poetry; when Commager could not find the line in an anthology, he concluded that the book was incomplete and tossed it out a window. On the other hand, Jumonville's periodic discussion of Commager's long friendship and correspondence with historian Allan Nevins is interesting but not especially revealing. And Jumonville's frequent references to Commager's relations with the New York Intellectuals do little, in my opinion, to add to Jumonville's thesis. Some readers will not find this book very exciting. But to the extent that intellectual history is a spectator sport, it is more akin to golf than football. I believe this book is a major achievement, but I also suspect that there still is room for another, more searching intellectual biography of Commager, especially one which examines his scholarly output in greater detail. What I am suggesting may be the equivalent of "inside the Beltway" political analysis, and, were he alive, Commager might object to this narrow focus, but it is the standard by which every professional historian is ultimately judged.

Each country (or group of countries) has a 2-page spread, and each map is centered on the spine, making that area of the map virtually unreadable. It was so unworkable, I had to return the book. Quite a disappointment.

This is a wonderful Atlas for an elementary school aged child. It lists languages, currency, religion, population, etc etc for each country clearly. Great information on rivers and mountains as well. Colorful, clearly displayed information makes it easy to use. My son reads atlas this for fun!

Richard Steele and his uncle Robert "Bob" Steele penned a nice chronicle of Robert's experiences as a WWII P-47 "Jug" pilot. This book is an easy read, made up primarily of anecdotes from notes Bob kept during his wartime days. Almost half of the book is about Bob's childhood and formative years. The insights provided help one appreciate the life styles and attitudes of the average Americans in the years leading up to WWII. Bob's courtship of his future bride, Grace, provides a prelude to their eventual closeness during the travails to come. His entry into the Army Air Corps and pilot training are covered in some detail. He is eventually assigned to the 62nd Fighter Squadron, commanded by Major Dave Schilling, part of the 56th Fighter Group, led by Colonel Hub Zemke. Bob's experiences as a fighter pilot are covered in three chapters of the 15-chapter book and leave the reader disappointed at lack of detail about what must have been a harrowing and exhilarating period. Bob is shot down into the English Channel on his 23rd mission, and his discussion of his experiences enroute to and in Stalag Luft III make up some of the most interesting passages. The book details the privations of Prisoners of War and the turmoil Bob and his fellow prisoners suffered. This section contains some interesting stories about their eventual liberation by General Patton and visits to their camp by General Eisenhower. The narrative concludes with Bob's return to the USA and reuniting with his wife, daughter Pamela who was born while he was in captivity, and his family. The book contains an Appendix detailing the war records of the members of Bob's Squadron. While lacking in the detail and zest most military history readers prefer in wartime chronicles, this book will provide entertainment for the reader and is a very personal tribute to a fighter pilot who served his country well and faithfully.

With our renewed patriotism post 9/11/01, Thunderbolt:Out of the Blue captures the honor, sacrifice, family,love and heroism that defined our country's "Greatest Generation". This book is not just another a World War II story. Robert J. Steele and Richard Steele weave a pattern of intrigue, emotion and triumph fundamental to the fabric that makes our country what it is. This true story would make an outstanding movie. I highly encourage anyone and everyone to read it. You won't be dissappointed.

The "unraveling of america" was by far the most illrepresented mind jarble i have ever read. The authors uncanny ability to misconstrue the facts dealing with the Great Society was so incrediable it actually made me laugh out loud in mid sentence. For all of you considering to by this book my best advise would be to instead purchase a copy of charles murray's book "losing ground".

A very good review of the most turbulent decade in the 20th Century. Matusow encapsulates all of the major policy areas that the government dealt with, showing successes and failures as well as his analysis of the situation. For the book's second part, he writes about the left's reactions to these moves and how the various radical groups took certain aspects and focused their discontent upon them. Overall, well-written, very readable, and gives enough detail to satisfy most basic questions the reader might have regarding the issues he covers.

"The Remnant" picks up where "Desecration" left off, leaving us waiting and waiting for the action of Armageddon and the series to finally wrap up. I was a big fan of the series during the first several books. Although quite unrealistic in their approach, the Left Behind books present the tribulation in a serial form that is quite entertaining. But I'll have to agree with a number of other reviewers that the series has stretched on far too long, most likely to generate money. The past several editions have rehashed plot segments from previous books, helping to add text and pages to the newest installment. Certainly, they could have finished this series by now.

If you're a fan of end times fiction, I suggest picking up the "Christ Clone Trilogy". The plot's a bit more believable, and you only have three books to buy instead of twelve! Even better is "Conquest of Paradise" which is only one book and presents the most realistic portrayal yet of the tribulation. "Conquest of Paradise" combines the page turning excitement of Left Behind with the technology and realism of "In His Image", "Birth of an Age", and "Acts of God". Readers would do far better to pick up these books instead. By now, I'm not sure whether I'll buy "Armageddon" (book eleven, twelve, seventy-five...?) or not! But I'll go ahead and give "The Remnant" four stars because I like the genre.

The Remnant is nearing the end of the Great Tribulation. I am a Christian myself, just to eliminate any potential bias anyone may have against this review. This book was captivating, but primarily because I want to finish the series so I can finally know how the fool thing ends. The most irritating quality of this book is the fact that the Christians are portrayed as super- heroes, while the enemies are a bunch of incompetent bumblers. The annoyingly brief, slapped- together of nature of this book really kills as well. A sad departure from number nine.

I feel like I'm leaving the Remnant writing this. Maybe it's because I wait so long for the paperback version to come out, but I can't keep track of the characters anymore!! The authors have kindly supplied two pages of characters to refer to, but the plot has become very fluid. I get the impression that even the authors are now panicing to get the last book out,as near the end of The Remnant plagues come thick and fast..what would've normally taken at least two best selling novels to explain.

I have brought all ten Left Behind books and unless the Lord comes early I will buy the eleventh..but I'm only doing that because I would look stupid not having the whole series from start to finish. If you have never read any left behind books before my advise is not to start with this one.

The Cottage is not Ms. Steel's best work, but it was an enjoyable and quick read. I thought it was unfortunate that Ms. Steel chose to make her main character, Cooper Winslow (an ageing Hollywood legend), so unlikable. I simply could not warm up to him. Coop, was so shallow, immature and self-involved. And worse still, at 70, he preferred dating (and sleeping with) women in there early 20's. Yikes!...
Having said that, it was nice to read a romance novel that revolved primarily around men. I thoroughly enjoyed the side stories that involved Mark Friedman (freshly dumped by his cheatin' wife) and Jimmy O'Connor (recently widowed). All-in-all, it was a good read.

Very good reading. Couldn't put it down after the first couple of chapters!

It was a very good book. Predictable and not her best, but I liked it.