Not worth wading through the negative attitude to get the good points.
595092
This is the hardest review I've ever had to do. So first, I want to say that I did get some valuable tips and ideas. There was some good information--especially towards the end of the book. And I do appreciate that Albert Taylor helped start the Hug-A-Tree presentations.  Let me say here, that the first book on tracking I read was David Hull's Man tracking in law enforcement. Excellent book there. Now, for this book. Yes, I did get something good out of it. But I was really disappointed in the way this book was written. The whole attitude of the book was not welcoming, and some of the language was not professional. Rude phrases, crude humor, and swear words in a search and rescue tracking manual. Really? Also, It was very conflicting being told that I can't be a professional tracker, I have to work really hard and then maybe some day I kind of can? And as a beginner I can't do certain training exercises because it isn't accurate enough and I might learn wrong but later on (in the book) I can because it will speed up the process (of aging tracks). It was confusing. I'll be looking for a different tracking book for the points I learned from this one (that Hull's book didn't cover quite so well). I will not be recommending this one.
1745522
Reading is not pleasant. Some interviews offer too much text for too little interesting or useful information.
1478604
I think that the author brings up some very important points. However the points that she makes are not anything new to the field of gender studies. And there isn't any substantial research done in this short piece. It is all based on the authors personal experiences that she is vocally angry about. There are many better books on the same subject.
And while I agree with the author that anger can be a good thing I part ways with her by believing that it's easier to win people over by toning down emotional language and using more objective language. Not going to win me over to being her supporter with a whiney tone.
2488189
This book was borrowed from a family member, who insisted it was an inspirational tail.  If you look past the author's simultaneous arrogance and idiocy, there is a positive message there.

As another reviewer noted, the author comes across as a spoiled jerk who trying to rationalize his past screw-ups by scrubbing toilets at a coffee house.  His reflections prove the opposite of what he is trying to assert: he still doesn't "get" middle- or lower-class life.

Two points immediately come to mind:  Firstly, with a family line so closely associated with The Kennedy family, British Royalty, authors such as Hemmingway and Frost, and Manhattan millionaires, why in the hell wasn't he able to secure anything better than a job at a coffee house after being fired?  Also, why does the concept of grout provide such a problem for this man?  Is it the brain tumor?

The writing style he uses is often...awkward.  The concepts expressed (however silly) are of a level that conflicts with the quality of his writing.  It smacks of being "dumbed down" by a team of editors to appeal to the typical 5th grader.

Not altogether a bad read, especially if you can manage to glean the message the author is trying to convey.  Just don't expect to feel moved.
628315
This is a great example of how people with an established relationship with a publisher and name recognition take advantage of interested readers hungry for help.
The Secret was an OK reminder of being positive, but I think everyone who has lived in this economy since it was published can tell how much a positive impact her version of the Law of Attraction has had.  I found this book to be uninspiring, insipid, and in some areas, almost condescending in tone. This is the second book of the same title that I've read...and I highly recommend the other one.  Check out&nbsp;<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/The-Power/dp/0615387853/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">The Power</a>&nbsp;by Glenn Wolkoff.
4619213
While reading it, I felt as when I speak to a person who wants to brag on their life.  Did not care for it.
2416762
I felt that the profanity was not needed to get the point across.  Overall an interesting look into institutions.  I was a little disturbed that most of the contentwas negative.  I had worked in such a place for several years.  Things have changed, true, but at least give the good points where they are deserved.  There are many caring people who work in these places, not all is so sordid as portrayed in this book.  I am speaking for the time era that the book covers.  I, personally, would hesitate to read a follow up to this book.
4412850
Riddled with weasel words (some say, some people say, many people say, many people think), political opinions, and sentences longer than I-20.

There is nothing wrong with holding the opinion, that, say, a single-payer system of healthcare is what this country needs (pg 46).  Even though I may disagree with you, if you, as an individual, expressed that opinion to me and argued your position, I would listen politely and offer my own point of view.  In other words, we'd have a conversation.

Now, to be completely fair, the authors were reiterating a position statement from the American Nurse's Association on page 46 regarding the desirability of a single-payer option "for financing a reformed healthcare system."  However, the very next sentence is, "These suggestions have merit but would require a cultural change in how we think about health care, the education and training of healthcare providers, and the financing of our healthcare system."  And that, I am sorry, is editorializing and opinion-spinning.  I cannot dialogue with the authors.  If there is a test question that asks me if, according to the textbook, a single-payer system of financing healthcare has merit, I will be forced to answer "Yes" in order to receive credit for the question.

Based on some reviews I've written in the past that have been critical of social science textbooks, it seems that a lot of people's knee-jerk reaction is to vote my reviews down because I don't necessarily agree with author's premises.  I want to make it clear that I am not making a statement about the opinions the authors hold (except where explicitly stated otherwise), only that I believe their inclusion in a textbook that is supposed to be about nursing science is inappropriate and amounts to attempted indoctrination of new nurses into a particular political point of view.  This book contains similar statements regarding gun control, snide and simplistic observations of libertarian philosophy, and some statements about people of various races which, if they came from an older white man, would probably be greeted with charges of hate speech.

The authors do manage to be objective quite often, in that they are simply relaying important information.  When they do that, it's a decent textbook to read, and I learned a lot about public health policy in the US from using this textbook.  It's a good book for that purpose, mostly, but it must be read critically to avoid simply accepting everything the authors say as fact, when it may in fact be nothing more than their opinion, preceded by weasel words.

Some nuggets:
"Value citizenship and public service above entrepreneurship (pg 60)."

"Those who view nature as dominant (e.g., African-Americans and Hispanics) believe that they have little or no control over what happens to them (pg 81)."

"The American middle-class culture tends to be future oriented, and individuals are willing to delay immediate gratification until future goals are accomplished.  In contract, African-American and Hispanic families may place greater value on quality of life and view present time as being more important than future time (pg 80)."

At times, I found myself wondering if the authors were writing this way for the lulz.
2542823
This book was among 7 others that I bought about becoming a new stepmom and blending families, and it was the most frightening and negative of all. It is written from a Christian perspective, which generally shouldn't matter all that much but in this instance I felt it was used as a vehicle to deliver negativity. There are a couple of good suggestions, but overall the message was very discouraging and negative in tone. I don't feel that it did enough to highlight potential positives, or how to work to get to those outcomes in a forward-looking, workman-like and healthy manner. I also felt that it turned back the clock on equality about 30 years, and sometimes portrayed women as needy, high-strung, overly sensitive creatures who should submit to her husband's will and be okay losing herself to the needs/wants of the family/step-children. It was confusing to read because it would make points about how that kind of thing was not okay, but then sprinkle 'tips' and biblical passages which read the opposite way.

I am sure the writers are well-meaning, and maybe there are some out there who can benefit from this style of book, but after feeling like I was sinking into a funk, I had to put it down and move on to another, more positive book.
1742688
In other words, you only want to hear or publish the good remarks. Not the actual ones if purchaser it not happy.
4664093
The author continues to repeat himself perpetually.  Grant uses the term success in an ethereal manner, freely uses it for all scenarios, and then uses argues against haters for not wanting to be "successful."

On a positive note, there are a few good nuggets of truth scattered throughout the book, and I believe those of us in the Millineal generation could use the encouragement to actually put in the effort and avoid hiding behind our fears.

Skip the majority of this book and just read the last two chapters.
3294656
There are great ideas in the book, but the author spends a tragic amount of time being rude to the people who would benefit the most from this book.
12715
The information is generally solid (if sometimes old -- do we need yet another recitation of the Stanley Milgram experiment?), but the smug, know-it-all tone is insufferable. The chummy, collegial air when writing about their colleagues gets annoying pretty fast. It goes without saying that a liberal political bias (that's too weak a word) is replete throughout the book. (I sometimes agree with them, but this stuff is so New York Times-predictable in tone that it quickly becomes boring.) Their hubris in making wholesale political and economic recommendations is laughable. How easy for privileged psychology professors to claim that conventional energy jobs such as mining will be replaced by newer, cleaner jobs. Perhaps they might tell us what the affected workers and their families will do until that happy (but unspecified) day arrives. What they propose regarding teaching children about climate warming amounts to thought control in my opinion.

I have a doctorate in the social sciences and teach at a major research university and see this kind of high self-regard for one's opinions on a daily basis. Heck, I used to engage in it myself until I wised up.
2098863
This book came highly recommended by a friend a few years ago. So, when my husband and I decided to lead a discussion group about adoption at our church, we thought this would be a great guide. We were wrong. Though there are some good points, redeeming stories, and glimpses into the depth of a believer's reality as adopted inheriters, the author spends more time on non-essential tangents and condemnation than the topic of adoption.  For example, various book chapters explore and condemn abortion at least five different times. Yes, the right to choose is connected to adoption, since pro-life decisions lead to adoptees, but the topic of abortion is not central to God's story of adoption or the calling to adopt. Another example of the author's condemning tangents is when the writer chooses to make a moral stance against IVF and AI birth plans. Why not just stick to the subject of adoption since that's why a reader would choose to read this book?!

My greatest concern was the constant belittling of all people who are not Christians. As a Christ-follower myself, I have learned to recognize God in the most unexpected of places... like a graffiti-filled alley or a top-40-radio hit. Similarly, I see Jesus' values etched in the character and actions of people who do not know Him as Lord. That's because non-believers are capable of BEAUTIFUL acts of kindness, generosity, sacrifice, and care. Non-believers commonly seek out adoption, care for their neighbors, and behave as moral people. So, why repeatedly make the assertion that only Christians act morally, adopt, and care for those in need?

All of the couples in our discussion group were good sports and read the book from beginning to end. However, lots of our discussion time ended up being about ways the adoption metaphor breaks down (God alone is Savior; the author is not a savior to his children and other parents who adopt are not saviors---that is God's role). Our group tried to focus on the good points offered in the book (such as finding ways to prepare your family for your choice to adopt or knowing that race should not predicate an adoption decision), but we struggled.

I certainly would NOT suggest this book to any person I know. I cannot even bring myself to give this book to a local used book company because so much of the content is theologically toxic.
3612496
I felt compelled to write a review after reading the two previous reviews lauding this book. First of all, this work seems more suited as an essay than a book. The author belabors his points ad nauseum. If complicated concepts were being expounded, then certainly I can understand the desire to give multiple examples to drive home your points but there is nothing for the most part complicated or novel here, unless you're quite young or naive. Page after page I found myself saying "Ok, I get it, move on!"

Case in point: Chapter One. The author drones on about the fear of death. His quote about Lucretius however would suffice: "When I am, death is not; when death is, I am not. Therefore, death is nothing to me." While author Kent Bach's writing style is long-winded, his line of reasoning is shortsighted on a number or matters. Take the topic of death, for example. Perhaps Bach isn't aware of Emily Dickinson's insight: "That it will never come again is what makes life so sweet." Indeed, satisfaction can be derived from life directly as a result of it's brevity. However, no mention of this valid and positive outlook is found in Bach's analysis.

I can go on but won't waste my time except for providing you with one more example of the faulty analysis I encountered. One of Kent Bach's claims, and I quote, is that "Whether it's with your town, your team, or your temple, identification with anything but yourself is mistaken." Maybe Bach isn't much of a team player, but some people are, and I for one find his thinking to be ludicrous. Bach denies the authenticity of being proud of your team--an assertion to which I'd put forth the following rejoinder. Consider the sport of basketball. There are some players who are chided for hogging the ball, and often a good team is formed by players who suppress their selfish urges for the good of the team. Take, for example, the player who passes the ball to an open team member rather than make a rush for the basket in an attempt to increase his own number of goals scored. Bach would have you believe that being proud of being a part of such a team is nonsensical. Instead, we are aliens in this world we inhabit, we are separate from the groups we identify with, and indeed, even the self itself is amorphous. Well, I do know one thing that doesn't have any noteworthy substance: this book.

P.S. No other thinkers are presented--either for or against--in the argumentation of this book, except for a quote or two. I found this particularly appalling given the author's annoying tendency to reiterate everything he states. And what he states is nothing new. The ideas presented I've encountered before, such as the notion of the looking glass self, which Charles Cooley put forth in 1902.
2548752
This is a fairly good book with some useful information. However the tone of it is largely condescending. I especially disliked the parts where the author felt it was necessary to tell the readers to be professional and what it entails in her opinion. I also did not appreciate the revision questions at the end of each chapter - they seemed more like a way to fill pages.
It is not great value for money either. There are several books & blogs that deliver more detailed and pertinent information than this for less (C. McKay for one).
3492122
I deliberately "borrowed" the title of my review for this book, because I completely agreed with another reader who noted that the "tone" of the book comes across both as preachy (with some suspect religious overtones) and shrill. Worse, there are times when the author seems to berate the reader, and this is where the "mean" designation comes in.

What about the rest of the content? Well, if you really need a book to tell you to empty your trash and clean your sink, then I guess this might be the book for you. But for this reader, that info. was just a little TOO basic.

I would have preferred some organizing tips that addressed concerns for working women, women with un-cooperative husbands, etc. (It seems all the women who are "flybabies" have DH's, aka: Darling Husbands.)

As another reader noted, the book seemed to be aimed at those who are very depressed, and need daily motivation to just get dressed and get moving.

[...]

Good luck!