neither fish nor fowl
922875
Okay, so the book called itself a Novel of Suspense. There were enough hints of political / spy thriller to grab my interest. Unfortunately it quickly devolved into a cheap trashy modern-day bodice ripper, the kind of book I loathe.

Mostly I was confused. This was the first and probably last book I read by this author and it was a mishmash of genres, which a skillful author might have pulled off. This author couldn't. The plot, what there was of it, could have been spectacular if it had been rounded out with care and properly built suspense. Instead we get way too much Yachting 101 and a pair of main characters who can't keep their hands off each other while supposedly trying to Make the World Safe for Democracy. The other characters are one-dimensional, unexplained or just plain irritating, from the person 'formerly known as Alara' (a label as self-consciously precious as that of Prince) and an Ambassador supposedly 'no longer part of the government' despite being neck-deep in manipulating it, to the St. Kilda folks completely absorbed in their family coziness (bringing the wife and kiddy on a potentially deadly mission? An older son hacking his way into the family spy business between classes while Proud Papa reacts with a mere 'that's my boy!' Oh come on!)  Maybe I'm expecting too much realism, but that's what happens when I pick up a supposed political thriller.

There some good things about this book, which kept me reading through the disappointments. Initially the boat maintenance info was interesting, until it went way too overboard and out of control. The location of the story was in a part of Canada where I grew up - pleasant surprise - which made reading fun at first, until it became nothing more than a listing of all the ports and bays of the area with not a word about the rather unique aspects of the various locations. Granted, this book is not a travelogue, but I got the feeling that the author merely looked on a map and wrote about the place without ever actually having been there. Also, the plot was convoluted enough to hold my interest, but eventually got so snarled that many of the good and bad guys were indistinguishable, and too many subplots were left unresolved.

I think that this book had great possibilities that were not realized, drowned in Romance Sleaziness (as opposed to Tasteful Lust). I also think it would have been a lot better if the author paid more attention to basic writing skills and didn't do things like: constantly switching character point of view without warning, bring up the unnecessary private thoughts of each person in every scene, use short, choppy paragraphs of only one or two sentences like a screenplay, and end each scene with a heavy-handed, single-sentence Suspenseful Thought that was supposed to keep the reader intrigued, but instead just felt contrived. A really good writer could get away with these things. This author is not among them.
523222
Nicolette Hahn Niman is an environmental advocate and cattle rancher, and is also married to Bill Niman, the founder of Niman Ranch (e.g.,&nbsp;<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/Niman-Ranch-Cookbook-From-Farm-to-Table-with-America-s-Finest-Meat/dp/B005HKPFVM/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">Niman Ranch Cookbook: From Farm to Table with America's Finest Meat</a>), which attempts to raise food animals in a more humane environment.

While discussing modern meat production with a Sierra Club employee, she was told that "these aren't farms. They're FACTORIES!" (Pg. 7) She concludes that the disappearance of the family farm was not inevitable, but had been "aided by public policy and stimulated by individual entrepreneurs looking to maximize profits. Much of this 'progress' had occurred at the expence of farmers and animals." (Pg. 61)

She is shocked by the fact that at egg-producing operations, male chicks are killed almost at birth, and she observes, "I was baffled that anyone could consider a system 'progress' that throws away millions of newborn animals every year---one of every two live births." (Pg. 45) She details how the hens are "debeaked," because "hens' frustration and boredom caused them to aggressively peck each other." (Pg. 52) Similarly, pigs' tails are "docked" because the pigs in their crowded captive conditions bite each others' tails. (Pg. 108) By contrast, however, she finds that "most American beef cattle are raised in a way that I find morally acceptable." (Pg. 136)

She is no vegan, however, but a vegetarian. She deplores "how lots of vegans subsist on utterly unnatural foods... highly processed, industrial creations," such as pretend-meats, fake bacon, tofu jerky, etc. (Pg. 133) Noting that "I still eat eggs and dairy, plenty. My favorite foods include cheese, butter, yogurt, and ice cream (with eggs not far behind)," she now only uses products from "good farmers who treat their animals respectfully." (Pg. 176) Although she does not eat fish, she observes that with modern fish farming and the state of wild fisheries, "there are no good choices" about eating fish." (Pg. 218) [More controversially, she criticizes "vegan extremists" who feel that all meat-eaters are "a charter member of the axis of evil." (Pg. 258)]

Opinionated, this also a lively and heartfelt book that will be of particular interest to those non-vegetarians who are interested in more humane ways of raising animals for food.
2243900
i am not an ornithologist, but i have a graduate degree in zoology, formal art school training, and i have published photographs in major journals and magazines. moreover, i live in los angeles and i see plenty of los angeles birds. so i am qualified to say that the drawings in this book do not look like the birds i see in los angeles. plus, the book is stuffed with birds from outside of los angeles, with no preference given to los angeles birds. if you want los angeles birds, don't get this book.
2382423
Well, this scared me, but birds are smarter, I guess. Unbelievably, the  birds figured this out in 2 days. What a waste of money! Yesterday, I was in the pool and looked up and a bird was sitting looking at the owl with a fig hanging out of his mouth. I am now trying wind chimes.
1827425
While this book was Honoured by The Children's Book Council of Australia, my children simply did not like it.  After one reading the refused to listen to it again.  They explained to me `the idea of a man with a bird's nest on his head' is stupid.  The premise of the book is Colin Jenkins falls asleep under a tree, while a rare bird builds a nest on his head.  Rather than remove the nest from his head, he loses friends, his job and his home, and one day the birds simply fly away, never to be seen again.  The Jenkins family, is left with a birds nest, which they lay beside the window sill and `from time to time he would find the most beautiful and improbable things...'.  While my kids did not find the story amusing, they were fascinated by the illustrations, a combination of hand drawn sketches, colour and meaningful collage.
790681
I didn't even buy this book.  I stopped at the cover.  Upside down cross? Why? Because all vegans can closely relate to the apostle of peter? Or because we all believe - there is no god?
Seems over pretentiously vegan.
Classic.
4758475
I picked this one up on a good sale ($2!) to give to my niece's class as I know they have Chicks 'n Salsa and I thought they'd like the sequel/companion book.

In this one, the farm animals are having a football watching party. (Note: I'm not a big fan of the sort of farm books where animals exist only to be a nuisance. Nobody keeps pigs unless he plans to eat them, thanks very much, but this NEVER COMES UP. It weirds me out. However, lets move on.)

The rooster is concerned that they don't have the perfect snack, so he decides to make buffalo wings and heads out west to go get a buffalo and take the wings.

Once he's there, though, he realizes his mistake - buffalo wings are CHICKEN wings! Now, I don't know about you, but if I had this big plan to cook dinner, and then found out that my recipe came from a dusty old copy of To Serve Man, I'd be more than "red-faced". I would have more concerns than the fact that my "perfect feast was a flop". But the implied almost-cannibalism gets no more mention, and the rooster just invites the buffalo home to watch the big game with him.

Did you get that? He invites the animals he was going to EAT home to watch TV with him. Awkward, much? I'm not a vegetarian, but I don't think I'd want to eat a sentient TV-watching critter who could've been my best friend.

Oh, and then all the animals play football together and eat jalapeno hush puppies.  The buffalo aren't a heck of a lot larger than the chickens.

At the end of the book is a recipe for buffalo wings, with a "cute" note in the ingredients that the chicken wings should include "no rooster wings, please!". Um. Yeah.

I'm not, as I said, a vegetarian. I just ATE a plate of buffalo wings before I typed up this entry! But I think it's a little strange and creepy for a book about a talking chicken who cooks and plays football to include a recipe for, well, chicken. It just sends a very strange and bizarre message. (And roosters ARE chickens. Is it okay to eat the girls (hens) but not the boys (roosters)? What sort of messed up, misogynistic chicken standard is that?)

I will still give it to the classroom. After all, I probably *am* overthinking this. I'm sure the kids will just read it and get a funny story about a hilarious mishap.

But I was really freaked out, and don't want it on MY shelf.
546791
I don't want a book of classic french or italian dishes that were adapted  I was looking for dishes that are original classic vegan dishes from around the world...this i not it.  Another person using meat subsitutes ... I wish someone would research dishes from around the world that are tried and true classics and happen to be vegen not forced to be vegan.  If you are looking a another vegan, tofu book this is for you
948684
I really, really wanted to like this book.  Unfortunately, I then read it.  I love fish and fishing and biology and have thoroughly enjoyed a number of other books superficially like this one.  But there is precious little biology in the book and it has almost no natural history of bunker in it.  It mostly consists of the same cliched whines repeated repeatedly and in a repetitive fashion.  Let me now summarize the book for you:

1) Bunker are abundant, massively abundant, ubiquitously abundant and abundantly ubiquitous.  Think of 742 other ways to say there are lots of them - by numbers, by weight, by density, by value, by golly.  Add too many adjectives and repeat every few chapters.

2) North America was a paradise in which ecologically sound Natives used to walk across the bays on the backs of the abundant, ubiquitous, prolific, bountiful bunker schools.  Birds followed the peaceful environmentalist Indians around whistling Zippity Doo Dah as they practiced ecologically sound techniques like slash and burn agriculture on non-privately owned land (no really, he cites slash and burn as good).  But then evil white Calvinist Christian Capitalists arrived and began starving, but unfortunately Squanto taught them to plant fish and now the continent is full of their whiny self-loathing descendants who over-fished the bunker and don't believe in global warming.

3) blah blah blah, and some pictures of Greenpeace protesters (aka whiny pilgrim spawn)

4) Some interesting stuff about fish, hidden between repetitions of 1, 2 and 3.

Read "The Founding Fish" instead - much better book with more tolerable prose, a deeper examination of its subject and less whining about Squanto.
3331580
Apparently the author ignored the passion of Tolstoy regarding leaving animals OFF the menu! ;http://www.all-creatures.org/aro/q-tolstoy-leo.html
Having meat and dairy recipes in this book is pure disrespect for the life and humane principles this man encouraged.

Besides that, given the incalculable moral, spiritual, environmental and ethical issues of animals as products, it's just ignorant to continue promoting a food system at the root of every major disease humans succumb to as well as infectious diseases from this system of animal production.

Raising, feeding, killing 65 billion farmed animals is the means to our own demise. Leo Tolstoy warned us, as have other prophetics.
"A man can live and be healthy without killing animals for food; therefore, if he eats meat, he participates in taking animal life for the sake of his appetite. And to act so is immoral."
1944738
There is something to be said about too much information about fish. I liked what I read (most) about surprising capabilities, but I am basically not that interested about fish. Birds probably and mammals for sure though..
4043605
Naturalistic Darwinian evolution cannot account for the laws of logic which isn't natural! Therefore evolution is false!
Dawkins `science' is poetry that is true, no more, no less. Playing with words can mesmerize the reader, intoxicate the reader like Mozart's music but in the end is only for entertainment purposes, to beguile the unstable, unscientific, non philosophical. His work is full of magic, it has nothing to do with testable science, it is the same as the serpents beautiful, poetic subtlety of words to deceive mankind into hell. It reminds me of the sinister story of Alice in Wonderland where the unscientific can only be entertained by fanciful creatures [demons] before he gets bored and moves on, hopefully to real science this time and not poetry. Read the book, the Dawkins Delusion to see what real science is.

Below are atheists claiming the KJB is not of God because it contains contradictions, well my answer to that is not every contradiction in the end turns out to be a real contradiction, it is merely an apparent contradiction which can easily be resolved by the humble Bible student. For Example in Gen 1:31 God was satisfied with His works because He does all things well. In Gen 6:6 God is Dissatisfied with His Works but here is indeed the crux of the matter, why did God become dissatisfied with His works? It is because man has corrupted His work. But because the atheist does not want to believe in mans inherent sinfulness but want to pass the buck to God and does not want to take responsibility for his own actions, he will not even try to find the apparent paradox to this problem but will merely call foul play every time he does not understand something in the Bible. The bible is a spiritual book that can only be understood by Born Again believers who loves God. For example, God is light and reveals His light to people who seek the Truth but he cloaks himself in darkness to those hard hearted proud atheists who would not believe in God even if God should appear to them! God was light to the Israelites and darkness to the Egyptians! I am a tri part being, soul, spirit and body, God is also Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Now when you read the Bible you must see everything in context and you must rightly divide the text and allow the AUTHOR to speak for Himself. The demon that backs up the atheist will try to shed doubt and unbelief concerning everything written in scripture because the atheist does not want to believe so that God sends him a spirit of `blindness' of heart so that he cannot believe! Let's look at another apparent `contradiction', God doesn't dwell in temples, God dwells in temples. Ultimately God who holds the universe in the palm of His hand doesn't dwell in temples `for heaven is My thrown and earth is My footstool, where and how can you build a house for God? On the other hand God does manifest Himself in buildings and it's totally appropriate to invite the Holy Spirit into buildings and ask God to heal His people as is seen in Benny Hinn Miracle Crusades. Jesus is still God and He still heals people!

A second point of contention is Gods moral character. Buy the book, `Is God a moral monster' recommended by William Lane Craig. God never prescribes immorality, but the Bible `describes' mans sinful acts in the Bible, so there are no contradictions there either. The crux of the matter is this; the atheist will find every excuse to flee from a Holy and Just God because of his unholy and sinful nature! Repent!
420920
As an amateur botanist and longtime forager I was deeply disappointed by this book. It has no basis in science. Pick up a copy of Plants of the Pacific Northwest Coast instead.
283547
I will briefly comment on only one aspect of Bjorn's book.  It will serve as an example of the many problems of this book.  In his work Lomberg claims that habitat loss has had no effect on birds, that is it has not caused extinctions.  This is utterly irresponsible.  Clearly, habitat loss lead to the loss of no less than four species of birds in North America alone.  They are, the Carolina Parakeet, Passenger Pigeon, Ivory-billed Woodpecker and Dusky Seaside Sparrow.  These extinctions offer a cautionary tale to those who would haphazardly slash and burn rain forests or even northern temperate forests.  The important point made by our North American extinctions is that evolutionary specialization can mean disaster when the local environment is decimated.  The kind of specialization exhibited by the species mentioned above is uncommon in temperate regions, however endemism and ecological specialization is extraordinarily high in the tropics.  So thoughtless clearing of the kind engaged in here in North America would spell absolute disaster in the tropics.  I am not saying that development and the conservation of biodiversity are incompatible, I hamppen to think they are.  But the picture that Lomberg presents is not an honest one. Not in the slightest.  There is geniune truth in the 'litany'.  I think it is clear that pollution, bioaccumlation, ozone depletion (not so much a problem now as decisive action has been taken), acid rain are all serious problems that affect the quality of all life.  Lomberg likes to gloss over this fact, or say that it is not really a problem, or that is not as serious a problem as the environmentalists think it is.  This is a horribly irresponsible book.
917067
Very unbiblical. This book, first of all, is not about biblical economics. It is an eisegetical endeavor that seeks to promote a libertarian, free-market-promoting government. Some of the worst arguments I have read. As Max Weber would have noted, this book is a faithful adherence to the Calivinistic economic theology that is so deeply ingrained in the American spirit. Unfortunately, the American spirit reflects the opposite of what Scripture teaches. The author deceptively tries to put himself in a more middle ground, yet it is not middle at all. There is a great deal of confusion of economic terms (e.g., the author confuses 'private property' with personal property). This book does not adequately address the social situations of the texts in question, including social structures in the ancient world. By the way, the introduction should be a red flag for all serious bible students. For example, oikonomia does NOT mean "economics" and it does not literally mean "house-law." It means 'administration.' And this 'administration' is not limited to wealth. The author apparently does not know his Greek. This is a red flag because one does not simply systematize a biblical economics without knowledge of the biblical languages. This is also a red flag because those who do not know the languages and yet think such a task is doable are not good exegetes. If they don't have training in biblical languages, they sure do not have training in exegesis. This is apparent in this book.

An embarrassment to Christianity, to biblical studies, and a very eisegetical endeavor. I do not recommend.
758865
This was a waste. It was not about 'the natural history of the chicken'...nothing in this video was close to that. it was about 'weirdos who happen to have something to do with chickens'.  waste.
2896920
I have been researching the origin of Christianity since I left the "Holy" Roman Catholic Church and became Atheist. I am well read in Ancient Egypt. The title of the book interested me because anyone with any interest in Jesus is curious about the missing 30 years.

Tricia McCannon is correct about Jesus is Egypt, but as far as the rest is concerned, no. I have been to Glastonbury Abbey and know all the legends about King Arthur. I saw no irrefutable evidence of Jesus ever being there. The Celtic legends are fables only, not fact. Even the "Ley Lines" are fables. I know enough about science to know there are no such things as "Ley Lines" or "Energy Fields".

The name "Jesus" mght have been taken from the Celtic God Hu-Hesus by Pagan Roman Emperor Constantine I when he founded the Roman Catholic Church at the Council of Nicea 325 CE as the official Religion of the Roman Empire.

I won't go into McCannon's ideas about Jesus in India. Again they are  pure fables. There is no irrefutable evidence Jesus ever went to India.
To me this book as a believable as the worst book of fiction ever written the "Holy" Bible