A one-sided myopic view
594728
I had picked up this book with great anticipation. The history of the French English relations is indeed so complex and rich. And those 2 countries have shaped through their alliances and quarrels most of Europe and North America history. An account of their relations over the years could only be thrilling. Or so I thought.....

Unfortunately, my anticipation quickly turned into frustration. Where I expected a balanced and objective account of these relations over time, I only got a propaganda leaflet on England. Every turn, every event was used to portray the English supremacy and prominence of English values and concepts.

This books belongs more to the times of the great English French rivalry than to today's world. It is yet another perfect example of the bias that exists in this complex relationship.

I would only recommend it to those who want to understand how one can influence perception through a perverted distorted view of the world.
3993383
The trouble is, every authority wants us to "think big," and do so in the direction they want, but offering little useful roadmapping for driving there.  "Break Through" is not an exception.  Maybe the authors plan a Part II to publish this road map.  Hopefully the style of this unwritten sequel would be easier to navigate than found in "Part I."  Reading this book can be like reading a long string of Time Magazine essays, sophistication coming across as intellect.  The difference is that authors Nordhaus and Shellenberger ARE very intellectual.  It's just that the reader will find it hard to follow their conclusions from page to page.  This is unfortunate, because their persuasion points are different enough from the "average" polemic to deserve a good hearing.

Apparently the theme of this book is that we badly need to tackle environmental (and several other large) problems from a stance of gratitude, competence, and confidence; rather than from the more usual stance of guilt, limits, and revenge.  The authors write plenty of criticism of both political Left and Right to describe the ineffective "usual stance," but mostly of the Left.  More usual, they credit the fundamentalist and evangelical religious Right for being for have stolen a march on the Left for their promotion of optimistic, fix-it-ourselves approach to life.  You do not usually hear things put this way.  True or not, their thesis provokes thought.

What does "Break Through" want to DO, though?  Most of these kind of books fade off into hand-wringing "ain't it awful" rants.  This book does not do that.  The authors persist in what NOT to do to the end, and this deserves commending.  Also deserving commendation is their insistence that far too many on the Left and Right treat their truths as "religious" or legend-like; not as science or objective observation.  However, their own stated views on such topics as the current war in Iraq and global warming are told as assumed truth - religious-like!  "Break Through" was written a couple years ago, and actual events have made these views somewhat obsolete.  In spite of all this, the book presents enough fresh viewpoint to make it interesting and worth reading.  Oh yes - the endnotes are much too long, so ignore them.
4747797
Feels uncomfortable to use from various angles.  The viewing angles mixed with such a wide screen end up giving the effect of trying to watch a 3D movie with one of the lenses missing.

Looking at this monitor straight-on does not work for me.  It instantly appears washed out and distorted.

Thankfully I have an old swivel arm mount to try to find a sweet spot for viewing from my personal perspective which lead me to a really strange discovery.  You almost have to have this monitor facing downward angle and slight left or right angle to make it look better.  It only seems to see improvement from that angle, too, as going the opposite upward angle returns it to shadowy and distorted appearances.  Looking at the attached/removable stand for it, it doesn't even appear to give the monitor even a slight downward angle viewing option.

It might be overly bright, too.  The user controller interface feels a bit clumsy for my tastes, as well, and the buttons for menu options feel a bit too insubstantial.  I think the 'best' mix of brightness and contrast I've had so far is setting both in the mid-30s.
610613
Thomas Sowell sees people's world views as coming from some conceptual constructs which are often based on faulty premises and faulty thinking. He not only smashes lots of common notions, but tries to expose the ideas which lead people to accept those false ideas.

He does this in a fair and to a large part objective manner. So, for example, if he is looking at how discrimination factors into earnings differences between men and women, or blacks and whites he will examine many factors which contribute to those differences. Reasoning that if we can identify 3 or 4 other causes of earnings differences, and those factors account for some of the difference, then discrimination and other unidentified factors could only account for what is left.

He also exposes factors which make some the the statistics we normally see misleading. So, for example, if the average age of one group of people is 30 and another is 35 and a third is 43, then we would expect that their incomes would also be different, with the older groups making more money. This is what we see with Blacks (30), all Americans (35) and Japanese Americans (43). So at least some of the income differences are explained by age.

The book examines:
- Urban Facts and Fallacies where interesting facts about city planning come to light
- Male-Female Facts and Fallacies
- Academic
- Income
- Race
- Third World poverty

The book is jam packed with information, and insights. You are bound to have ideas you held to be true shown clearly to have overlooked important variables.

After reading this book, you will have a better understanding of the reality of these topics and the statistics used to support various views.
998635
too short, but gave me a visual reference for my angle
216879
I would recommend people look up the excellent Wikipedia article on the Bates method. From reading this unbiased, informative article you will see that natural vision improvement just does not work. By 'work' I mean improve your vision to 20/20. It provides scientific explanations for the flashes of improvement that people experience, as I did. These are transient spasm of the ciliary muscle, "blur adaptation", constriction of the pupil, a learned ability to interpret blurred images and a contact lens-like effect of moisture on the eye. So yes, people do report some improvement. It gives them false hope. But you will never improve to 20/20 vision.

To try and get the maximum improvement I went without glasses all the time. Because I couldn't see anything it knocked my confidence, I couldn't make eye contact with people. I was determined to improve my vision because I thought that it was my short sightedness that was holding me back and making me unhappy. I was young and vulnerable. I believed these frauds. I wasted months and years of my life because of the Bates method/eye exercises.

Those who seek out natural vision improvement are normally unhappy people, looking for reasons for why they are unhappy. So I would advise people that if you are unhappy do not think natural eyesight improvement will make you happier. It won't.

There are those who believe, as I did, that there is a conspiracy to hide the truth so that the optical industry carries on making money. There is no conspiracy. There have been studies done and it just doesn't work. I do believe that near work and near play, such as computer games, particularly in childhood while the eye is growing and forming, causes myopia. But I disagree that once the eye is in a certain shape, which is the cause of the myopia, you can do anything to change it.

I despair that this book has got so many 5 star reviews. It is very likely that these people have experienced the momentary improvement in vision, as explained earlier. Note that none of them say they have got down to 20/20 vision.

So, I must reiterate, don't waste your life following these unproven and damaging set of ideas.
52011
The snags and halting moments of aging are illusory since all flows easily in one direction. It only takes a point of view, a slight elevation, a turn in the right direction to see the inevitable, sad, occasionally soothing drift toward something ancient.
1412621
There is a blind spot.. But for short term wear the vision isn't bad.
Pretty big. Plastic.
1442839
No doubt it really shone some light on my personal phylosophy, but readers must be aware of the negativity of the author, everything in his eyes look bad....eg. John Kennedy is the worst president, all lawyers are bad etc. It's a good book though.
4691335
Majority of the photos in this book are taken in 3rd-world countries.  In my opinion, these photos stand out, not because they are meaningful or full of vision, but because they are different.  Anyone who came from a similar background would immediately recognize certain photos as blank stares by weathered, aged, and wrinkled people.  They are different and might evoke certain emotions from people who are so far removed from certain parts of the world.  Local photographers with vision and understanding take far more interesting and emotional photos of the same people.  The author's style of photography would have never stood out had the subjects been in North America or Europe.

  The author repeatedly painted himself as a respectable worldly photographer with vision and humility.  However, below are his own words:
  "She (a Hindu woman) graciously allowed me to photograph her for five minutes, then invited me in for chai.  Fearful that she'd marry me off to her daughter, I declined.  In retrospect, I wish I'd accepted(the chia, not the daughter)."

  I find this statement utterly degrading and demeaning to a different culture.  The author effectively took the photo for his own benefit, and smeared an entire population sector with his insensitive and presumptuous words.

  Overall, I find this book self-promoting and un-interesting.  Then again, the author's got Joe McNally for foreword, Vincent Versace for afterword, and Scott Kelby for a few words.

  Sigh!
4243628
The lenses are jacked up and have an uncanny ability to screw with your eyes as the angle to which someone views will either cause blurriness or a modicum of clarity.  They didn't refine the lenses to allow for the wearer's head to turn any way without detrimental blurriness.

Tossed out the day I got them.
2623952
Per another review, does not give good view. It is a very narrow sight picture. I wish that it was convex like anther cheap one  I had years ago. I would spend more for a better one next time.
453539
First of all, the bifocal (plus) line starts in the middle of your eyes. Secondly, the lenses are very dark. I bought it for fishing, but could not use it for the reasons above
3132364
I read this book with interest and from the perspective of a physician and medical educator.

My first impression was tainted by extremely poor editing.  Some of Dr. Ofri's descriptions can only be described as "purple prose" and were stylistically discrepant with the rest of the book.  She uses words such as "animus" incorrectly (twice).

More profound was my concern about her bias.  The overall impression she gives is that medicine is a miserable profession, medical education is challenging and abusive at best, and that the ranks of the medical profession are filled with burned out cynics, and worse.  It is only in the last chapter that she points out that there actually might be joy in the provision of medical care.

If I were considering a career in medicine and read this book as I was making my decision I would seriously consider something else.  It is not that the field doesn't have some of the challenges that Dr. Ofri writes about, nor that her experiences are unique, but a little balance is important.  I would warrant that the reason my colleagues go to work everyday is that the balance of "what doctors feel" is positive.

Now that I have written something negative, I presume that I have given her more ammunition about which to write in her next opinion piece or book.  She seems to thrive on the negative comments generated by her writings, articulating that the criticisms she receives provide proof of the rectitude of her positions.  It seems sad to me that her musings, which could be characterized as reflective writings in a modern medical curriculum, biased as they are (but potentially therapeutic to the writer) published for the consumption of a broad public rather than for personal benefit, have the potential to do as much harm as good.
657596
What I liked about Vantage Point, was it gives a particular situation and shows it from many prospectives.  In our daily lives, we only see situations from our own one-sided prospective.  It's probably good, because we probably couldn't handle it to see all sides as the movie suggested.
3462652
I READ TOM FRANK'S  BOOK WHEN IT FIRST CAME OUT AND LOOKED FORWARD EAGERLY TO SEEING THIS DOCUMENTARY.

IT WAS VISUALLY COMPELLING AND THE KANSANS FEATURED WERE ATTRACTIVE AND IN SOME CASES, COLORFUL.  BUT THE MANNER OF PRESENTING THE POPULIST THINKING SO PREVELANT IN THE STATE ON A STAND-ALONE BASIS, WITH NO NARRATIVE,  LEFT ME UNSATISFIED.  AFTER VIEWING ALL THE OTHER CHOICES ON THE MENU, I UNDERSTAND WHY IT WAS DONE THAT WAY, BUT SOME OVERARCHING CRITICISMS AND FRANKLY, POLITICAL WARNINGS, ABOUT WHAT THIS GROWING MOVEMENT MEANS FOR THE AVERAGE CITIZEN IN AMERICA, WAS WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR.
3341391
I am not a Conservative and not a Liberal, though I would guess my positions on most things these days are closer to certain Conservative views. I say that as a kind of criticism of this book which aims to put all Conservatives in one basket, and all Liberals in another. In other words something in me opposes this simplistic way of operation, and the presumption that one side is simply all right, and the other side always wrong and stupid.
Isn't it possible that the Liberals are more right on some issues, and the Conservatives more right on others?
 On the whole as it is biased with a conservitive agenda,I would not accept it all blindly . Each person has to think through every issue by themselves. And usually when we do think we do not come into total agreement with others but find areas in which we think and believe differently.