TWO VALID MOTIVES FOR VICTORY
938879
This short YA book offers two different kinds of heroes, although neither one thinks of himself in that glorious light. In wintry Wyoming a dog sled race is held annually--with an enticing $500 prize for the winner. Two male characters--with eqully valid reasons for needing that prize money--are eventually thrust into the spotlight, despite other contestants, but the race is hardly a fair match up.

Ten-year-old Willy lives with his ailing grandfather who despairs over his inability to pay the taxes on his potato farm. This stress and depression make his body fail--which causes great consternation in Willy's heart. If he could only win that race--the prize money would save both the farm and his beloved grandfather. He trusts their dog, Searchlight, with this burden, yet curiously Willy actually seeks advice from his chief competitor.

Then there is a huge Native American named Stone Fox whose dog usually wins. But this gentle giant is not interested in personal glory or showing up white men's inferior skills. No--his is a noble cause: he races to win that money to purchase land for his disenfranchised, Shoshone people. From the very outset readers understand that someone is going to die at the end, so this proves a YA novella which can elicit tears from readers and listeners of all ages.

Based on a Rocky Mountain legend STONE FOX presents two examples of personal conviction and heroic moral courage--giving readers cause to pause and reflect on the sacrifices that each hero is wiling--or obliged--to make. They both desperately want to save those they love--and need to put their trust in their dogs in order to accomplish this. But a race can only allow one winner. This tale of responsibility demonstrates that there are times when a boy is tested beyond his years--and required to do the job of a man. One hero will learn that there is no victory without sacrifice, but it is grief that makes the man stronger in the end.
3560404
Winning isn't everything, but doing the absolute best that you can and having fun while you're at it is the most important thing. This is what this book teaches. Today being number 1, the final score and the end result has become the most important thing. Athletes, especially at a young age are over trained and burned out. They have lost their passion because they have lost sight of the most important thing. It's not the end result, but the journey along the way. This book tries to instill the true purpose of competing.
3182357
The simplicity of the game means that anyone can play.  The knowledge needed to win means it can be tough at times to win.
3310406
I think the author set out to prove that owners are the controlling variable to any winning team. So let's look at Real Madrid's offensive and defensive tactics - highly professional but not something that changes the way top management operates in the way the book Moneyball outlined.

What this really is amounts to a lot of MBA-speak that says something simple. It says a professional team ought to monitor and enforce good, responsible behavior from it's players on and particularly off the field. That way the endorsement money will flow and with all that extra money it will be possible to attract and motivate the best talent money can buy.

That it - all of it minus the interesting details about Real Madrid and it's experiences.

As we've seen in sports, highly paid players can too often embarrass teams with wild behavior and have a negative effect on endorsement money. Image counts. Image is related to money. Money is needed to compete anywhere near the level of Real Madrid, to get the fastest players in the game.
2141751
Is a cause lost if it loses to another cause? Or, is it just less of a winner? Did the cause serve some beneficial purpose, even though less than it could have been? Does that really make it "lost"?

Though perhaps more than rhetorical, the question in this book is one of how you continue even when you know you are, at least by your own definition, going to lose. Since the book may have more than one facing a loss, there may be more than one answer. Losing, and what is at stake in the game, is different from person to person.

I am certainly no expert on Russian anything. But, I am old enough to remember ducking beneath my school desk during Air Raid Drills. Of course, I felt safe from the Russian atomic bombs in doing so. So, that long a history with the perception of "Russia" has filled my head with probably enough incorrect information to write a book longer than this one.

The version of Russia DuBois presents just seems authentic. While everyone knows what warts look like, writing about them takes at least a little more knowledge. The conversations flow realistically. The descriptions paint pictures. The naivete of Irina is awkward and overdone enough to make it believable. It caused me to mentally cringe (hopefully that effect was intentional).

I found it interesting that the characters I liked best were a sidewalk chess player, a Russian Communist Party functionary and a lady who, uh, brought comfort to others. The main characters were more philosophically necessary than the more ancillary ones (who were a little more "normal"). The combination did work for the the story being told.

There are a variety of elements to the book: politics, romance (real and platonic), a little suspense, some tragedy, and, of course, chess. The story is told through the eyes of both Irina and Aleksandr, basically in alternating chapters, but they flow well. There is enough back story to be both interesting and to fill in necessary gaps.

Recommended for those with an interest in that marriage between chess and the cold war. Or, for those who are following the current election in Russia (early 2012). I enjoyed it. There was some unique history and enough surprise to keep the pages turning.
4168885
Most of us have either witnessed or been a part of a "winning streak" whether on an individual basis or part of a larger group. The funny thing about such streaks is that advantages and opportunity tend to accompany them. Conversely, losing streaks also occur and are often linked with additional setbacks, uncertainty and doubt.  A professor at Harvard Business School wanted to identify what separates winners and losers so she set out to study the attributes of both types of teams and individuals. What professor Rosabeth Moss Kanter discovered is the basis of her book titled Confidence.  Her research found that the most prominent difference between both study sets was the concept of confidence and its ancillary attributes of inspiration, accountability and collaboration. The author says these components are critical differentiators because they empower individuals and the team with a sense of control regarding their circumstances. Soundview recommends this book because it reinforces the idea that each of us has the ability to decide our respective response to a loss, and subsequently choose whether it will become a downward trend or a learning experience that can be leveraged in the pursuit of future wins.
4830308
This book has two messages. The first is that peaceful relationships are possible. In their 49 years of marriage, Martin and Dorothie Hellman struggled to balance the rational and emotional for more than 3 decades. They succeeded, and haven't had an argument in well over 10 years. The book details their progress towards this state: No matter how much it was directed at me...his words only reflected something about him and where he was at that moment. and describes how they maintain it: Asking questions when you don't understand your mate and really listening to one another is key to creating a successful relationship. They describe the importance of belief and intention in reaching this state: You have to believe in the seemingly impossible gift of of unconditional love, and then dedicate yourself to discovering how to achieve it.
The second message of the book is that international relations can be improved in the same way, and that work on one benefits the other. They deconstruct seven international conflicts ans name the points where a different approach would have avoided escalation. These sections have been fact-checked by some very prestigious referees. They see the path to implementing this as an increase in compassion and holistic thinking, and that people need to expand their allegiances to larger and larger groups until it encompasses the planet itself. There is no doubt in my mind that this is the direction in which the world can and must move.
They end with a call to action and a website for like-minded people to meet.
Postscript: This is THE Martin Hellman of Diffie-Helmann key exchange, the basis for encrypted communications on the internet. If you're not in IT, trust me; this is a big deal.
4333085
This is one of the key questions Charles Royster seeks to understand in this important analysis of the American Revolution. Following a chronological approach, Royster probes the ideology of revolution, the rise of an effective fighting force to conduct that revolution, and the control of that spirit of revolution. He concentrates on the intellectual issues that arose in the context of fighting the British Empire. He believes that the men in the Continental Army not only rebelled against the perception of British tyranny but also against the issue of militarism. Americans rushed to join the army in 1775 because of what he called a "rage militaire" that represented a disavowal of British colonical policies and rule. This reaction might have been virtuous and patriotic, but that emotion did not sustain the Continental Army over the long haul of difficult battles and hardships. So what did?

Royster asserts that the Continental Army both shaped and tested the ideals of the American Revolution. He notes that the vision of liberty and independence, freedom and eqality, and the desire to create a new promised land outside the authority of a staid Europe motivated the men of the army. Morale went up and down depending on their fortunes, but their faith in this vision remained. Royster's key point seems to be: "in the eyes of the revolutionaries, war put to the trial the military ardor and skill as well as the moral assumptions on which they based their hopes for American independence. To fail as defenders of ideals was to fail as Americans, to succeed was to give the victors, their country, and its liberty the prospect of immortality" (p. 3).

The Continental Army, in Royster's estimation, was both loved and hated. It was needed for victory, but the ideals of the nation were non-militaristic and in many instances overtly pacifistic. There was a constant questioning of the role of the army in American society, especially after victory had been achieved. In spite of this, Royster believes generally remained a positive force precisely because of its leadership, patriotism, and professionalism. At the same time, there was always a suspicion that the army would act to subvert individual liberty. The tension was palpable. While the Continental Army won the war and ensured the creation of the American nation, it's role was never valued in the way that veterans believed appropriate.

The most interesting part of this book is the sense that the Continental Army embodied a national character or idealism. Did such a thing exist in 1775, 1776, 1783? If it did, it is a notoriously slippery concept, as it remains to the present. Without question, "A Revolutionary People at War" is a provocative statement of the role of the army in American life at the time of the founding of the republic. It may represent an overstatement of idealism, but it is an interesting one.
2539438
Reinventing Democrats chronicles the efforts of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) to shift the Democratic Party from its liberal orientation to a more centrist position.  It details the DLC's strategies, its successes and its failures up to the 2000 primaries, before the Democratic Party had selected a candidate.  It makes a compelling case that the Democratic Party needs to (1) select public policies that are fiscally responsible, business friendly, and, in short, consonant with middle-class values and (2) eschew or de-emphasize policies that are attractive primarily to the party's issue-activists -- this being necessary to occupy the mainstream of American political thought and avoid becoming politically marginalized.  This message is particularly relevant now (2003) that some Democrats are panicking over the 2002 mid-term election results and calling for a shift back to the left, effectively seeking to reverse the successful course set by Clinton after the disaster of the 1994 mid-term elections.
Clinton was elected on a New Democrat (i.e. DLC) platform, but he commenced to govern, or was perceived to govern, with a liberal agenda.  This led to his plummeting popularity and the mid-term disaster of 1994, and at the time it appeared he would be retired after one term.  Since a good scare is always more valuable than good advice, he embraced a New Democratic agenda in his second two years and, with a little help from the Republicans, he won a handy victory in 1996, vindicating the DLC in the process.  In all likelihood the New Democratic philosophy (embodied in Al Gore) would have achieved further electoral vindication in 2000 but for unfortunate lapses in the Oval Office and mis-steps thereafter -- the 2000 election was close;  Clinton-exhaustion seems to have been a factor.
This book narrates events in a Democratic evolution that is still taking place, and the success of which is not guaranteed.  If you care about public policy and the future of the Democratic Party, or just like to look inside the political process, this book is worth a read.
841820
Mosier states his belief upfront; without the intervention of the British and America and a number of poor decisions on the part of Hitler and the death of Wever (who was pushing for long distance bombers which would have allowed the Nazi's to push into territory they had never been able to reach before vs. the development of dive bombers), Stalin would have lost the war on his front. Stalin made a number of mistakes most of them due to sheer vanity this include executing the best and brightest of the Polish military; murdering anyone that was critical of Soviet made machinery or methods of fighting.

Moshier makes a compelling argument for his claim. As to whether or not you buy it, that will be up to you. It does remind me though of arguments made (in both history and science)that were for years considered absurd or questioned that came to be accepted (for example the fact that bacteria causes ulcers--for years it was seen as absurd until it was proven to be the case and a simple point--that all statues in Rome were white when, in fact, they were painted with dyes that washed away with time creating the pristine statues we see today--just because they discovered them that way doesn't mean that was the way they were when they were created. The same point here is that Moshier has pieced together surpressed documents, interviews and data from other sources to make his point. That isn't to say that sometimes it doesn't feel like he is reaching but his arguments and conclusions are pretty darn good for the most part).

Mosier also reminds us that Stalin was every bit the monster executing those undesirables in his own country but that his atrocities were largely ignored by the Allies because they needed him to fight Hitler on the Eastern front. Stalin's only victory was manipulating the "facts" and making it appear as if his leadership helped the Soviet's triumph. As Mosier points out comparing the two of them is like comparing serial killers--one might have more victims but than the other but that doesn't mean the other serial killer is a good guy.

 Reading Mosier's book reminded me of watching Stanley Kubrick's film "Paths of Glory" where the facts are manipulated to make a failure appear to be a victory and where numbers are used to hide the inept, vain leadership of the military and the politicians dependent upon their help.

Written in a surprisingly breezy, accessible style, Mosier's book recasts Stalin's defense of the Soviet Union as little more than a tissue tiger that relied on the resources of the West and the challenge that they issued in Italy as being one of the major reasons that helped sustain the Soviet Union towards the end of the war.

Highly recommended.
1007043
The Iron Man: a feat that once wasn't even tracked, then was lauded, and is now looked down upon. It's a simple premise: play every day. Hurt? Sick? Beaten and battered? You play. Even if, technically, you don't ever step onto the field. Keep the streak alive, for the sake of the everyman fan, the sake of team loyalty, or the sake of the streak itself.

John Eisenberg's THE STREAK chronicles baseball's "Iron Men" by focusing on the two most famous: Lou Gehrig and Cal Ripken Jr. He alternates chapters between the two, while also making sure to detail the "Iron Men" of other eras, all the way back to the 19th century, when such feats weren't given any notice. Though Eisenberg does seem to be somewhat fond of the stat, he offers plenty of criticism--past and present--against it, and ends on a somewhat ambiguous note. This really isn't a biography of either man (though it certainly has biographical content); it's rather an example of a near-extinct phenomena, revolving around the two who truly brought it into the spotlight. A solid read for baseball fans.
3014872
The heart essence lies in this book is the statement about the crowding-out effect of the reach of market-norm into the sphere of life which ordinarily not governed by the economic reasonings. In supporting his argument, the author rejected to employ the reasoning of coercive effect with regard to the unequal bargaining power of the parties, but rather he pointed out that the reach of market-norm into the non-market's space brings about the corruption or demeaning of things' value. The author's approach rests upon the postulate that there is/are certain value(s) in a certain thing, to marketise it is to eliminate its real value. Although this approach is quite conservative on the one hand, but its merit is well worth of being considered on the other. This book is written in the easy-reading style with a number of real event exemplifications, I recommend it as a 'good' book.
2557618
Hard work, integrity and persistence in the face of adversity are all well and good but are often not enough to be competitive in business or in sports. Gustavson and Von Feldt do a wonderful job explaining how organizational design can harness these wonderful character traits to produce a winning team, on the field or in the office. Definitely worth reading.
440612
This book was clearly prompted by the pairs skating debacle at the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympic Games. Strong background on the promotion powerhouses that drive the elite level of the sport (likened to the studio system of Hollywood.) Lund provides a balanced framework in an essay format to let readers draw their own conclusions as to the future of the sport. Good quotes from skaters voicing opinions on both sides of the issues. An insightful retrospective on why skating went from double digit TV ratings in 1994 after the Nancy Kerrigan/Tonya Harding scandal with umpteen made for TV pseudo competitions to the present state of a nearly non-existant professional figure skating circuit.
4038851
An enjoyable and thought provoking read comparing sport and business performance. Louis has brought together his passion and experience of sport and business to explore how the mind works to gain success as an individual or as a team. The connection with sport really helps with exploring the psychology, making it an interesting read especially as Louis has used many recent examples across different sports to support his views. An easy read that can be taken at many levels. I like the use of "ponder points" at the end of each section, again a good way to provoke thought as an individual or part of a team review. I would recommend reading, due to the structure of the book, its reasoning and learning can be easily transferred into the workplace. No psycho babble here, Louis uses clear and concise reasoning to support the many aspects of the mind, motivation and maximising business performance
2245569
Mr. Horowitz has penned a terse manual on the art of political war.  The thesis is miitaristic, like the title: politics is a form of battle, in which the side with the greatest will to win, usually does.  Horowitz  outlines this clearly when he states that the attacker usually wins.  This  is typically true because 80% of the damage done to a reputation is done by  the accusation, with little of it undone by later exonoration.  Case in  point:  Reagan's first Labor Secretary, Raymond Donovan, after being  acquitted of highly-publicized, false racketeering charges, asked in court,  "When do I get my reputation back?"  Democrats demogogue  Republicans routinely on issues like Social Security; calm recitation of  fact and principle will not sway the little old ladies frightened by scare  tactics into reconsidering their reflexive vote.  Horowitz recommends  delegitimizing the Left; this is both good tactics and good morally.  The  Democrats use good tactics in the pursuit of bad policy; Republicans should  do the like in pursiut of the common weal.  Outing the Left is duty as much  as it will be fun. -Lloyd A. Conway
3696313
It seems like the last election is just over. And we are already handicapping the potential candidates for 2008. Dick Morris is a long time political guy, usually working behind the scenes to get his man elected. For twenty years he was on Bill Clinton's team and now works as an independent consultant. In this book he presents several points worth discussion regardless of his central theme that the race may well be 'Condi vs. Hillary.'

In the American political system a candidate first has to win the nomination of his party. For the Democrats, this means appealing to a base of activists who are far left of the center. This includes people like the Howard Deans of the world. Mr. Morris correctly points out that Hillary's reputation with the base is excellent. At this point there is no one in sight that could prevent her getting the nomination.

After getting the nomination, the Democratic candidate has to move to the center to convince the electorate in general to vote their way. Hillary has clearly been making moves to gain more appeal in the center. And she clearly has an excellent advisor in her husband who managed to pull this off twice.

The situation with the Republicans is exactly the reverse. The base is farther to the right than the general voter. But you have to have this base on your side to get the nomination.

This book can be broken down into several kind of independent sections. Most interesting to me is his analysis of the vote in 2004. The political parties build coalitions of groups on which to concentrate their political messages. Mr. Morris does an excellent job of looking at the groups that voted in 2004. His analysis of the percentages of African Americans, Latinos, women (black and white), and what it would take to get them to shift just a few percentage points from the 2004 percentages is excellent.

I enjoyed his comments about Hillary and Condi specifically, but it's just too early to tell. Maybe his forecast will make more sense after the first few primaries. But there's one point he didn't mention. Americans tend to elect presidents who have been in previous leadership positions. Bush was a governor, a chief executive of a state. Gore and Kerry were senators, not the boss. Americans elect governors, generals, other leaders before they elect senators and secretaries of state.

Oh well, it promises to be a fun political season to watch.