We're sorry. Functionality for this page is not supported in Internet Explorer 8 or older. Please upgrade the latest version of Internet Explorer, Chrome, or FireFox.
It's a very good backpack, and my 17" MacBook Pro to fit in it very easily.
I don't drive; I use public transportation or walk, and bought the bag to have the laptop with me at all times (work reasons). Unfortunately, carrying the bag on one shoulder eventually caused the fabric which holds the zipper teeth to separate from the body of the bag.
This bag is strong, but it's definitely not up to what I put it through.
There is a brief learning curve for switching modes and such, and if you're not going to read the manual you should expect that things do not exactly turn out how you expect the first time you use it.
That being said, the optics are excellent, the digital zoom is excellent (though, as cautioned in the manual, at higher zoom levels you lose picture quality), and the camera itself is very solid. About the only complaint I have with it is that if the mini-DVD you're using is not Sony-branded, it has a little nag screen that last for a second, but disappears without any user interaction (you can probably get rid of that somehow, but I haven't bothered to find out).
You will want both a memory stick and DVDs for the camera. You will probably also want to buy a longer-lasting battery. Video at night is very possible, but if you're focusing on a distant object (such as the moon) you'll want to zoom out and back in if you've just adjusted your tripod, etc. - as the autofocus will sometimes judge the distance incorrectly, and lose focus.
Literally, those are the only bad things I can think of about this camera. :)
First off, anytime you see a book with "destroying/ruining/endangering America/the World" in the title, what the text generally is attempting to do is encourage you not to think. A fundamentalist with an atom bomb would be "destroying America." An activist Supreme Court Judge would be making a legal mess our children would have a job of cleaning up later, but the U.S. would still be around long after that Justice passed on.
The greatest argument for this book being in the Fiction section lies in the fact that Levin points at decisions going back through the history of the SCOTUS. The point that's overlooked in his screaming in horror about them, is that the country is still here, despite the best efforts of these allegedly awful, horrible people. What he calls activism is the court acting as a voice of moderation - all too important in a time where political discussions are presented to the public in five-minute debate segments on TV news.
As far as research and authorship goes, like Coulter with her ridiculous end-notes, Levin has decided to pursue the appearance of scholarship without actually getting any on his hands. Yes, he looks up quotes and puts them in context, but doesn't look beyond the surface, nor does he draw any meaningful conclusions from them. If you want an example of someone picking the facts to fit the theory, Levin is your man.
So what is Levin complaining about?
Pretty directly, it's Marbury vs. Madison and the decisions which that made possible, allowing the Supreme Court to become the arbiter of what is and is not Constitutional. Now step back a moment: which branch of government is best equipped to decide questions of constitutionality?
1. A branch led by two men (the President and Vice President), immersed in the cycle of campaign politics every four years, serving for a maximum of eight years, all the while working with their hands on the controls of the machinery of government.
2. Several hundred men, immersed in campaigning every two or six years, dealing with incredible pressures from all sides as they craft the laws and apportion the funding of government (as well as presumably exercising oversight on the other two branches of government).
3. Nine men (it used to be fewer) who are appointed wholly within the public view after long (and sometimes acrimonious) debate over their qualifications, standing, and legal/ideological positions, ultimately decided on by the upper chamber of the Congress.
I'll go with #3, and very happily. It's far better than having two or more branches having equal authority on the subject and throwing out different opinions of what Consitutional means. The President gets the armed forces and the police, the Congres gets the money and the law-making, it seems perfectly reasonable to me that the Supreme Court gets nothing but the ref's whistle.
Watch the Court, be informed about it, and know what's going on - but don't play Chicken Little and claim it's "Destroying America."
So. Let's try this again.
If it had been written better, it might have been marketable as a work of political humor, and could even have been done well in that genre. Unfortunately, the selective presentation of facts and statistics, as well as their creative interpretation, would get her thrown out of even the most conservative of universities if it had been presented as a serious scholarly work.
Kate O'Beirne manages to take all three of the common fallacies in inductive logic and turn them into a book. Some examples (I'm not even going to get into deductive logic, I'd be here all night):
Composition: Exclusive Attachment Syndrome is being argued for by these specific liberal academics, therefore all liberal academics are arguing to separate children more from their mothers. There's another use of the fallacy of Composition that works very well to illustrate the problem with it: Racial Profiling.
False Analogy: The most radical of the "feminists" hate men and want to undercut their achievements. "moderate" feminists and "radical" feminists are both feminists. Therefore, anyone who is a feminist hates men and wants to undercut their achievements. Do I really need to explain the problem with this one?
Hasty Generalization: Title IX has hurt these specific sports programs for men (most specifically wrestling, if I recall), therefore it has hurt collegiate sports. Never mind that the number of students that participate in sports in college was and is a small minority of the student body, both before and after Title IX, and that new sports for women are implicitly less valued.
The people that appear on the cover are in no way responsible for or informed by the positions of radical Leninist feminism, any more than the current Administration are card-carrying members of the John Birch Society. This book is argued from a deeply Essentialist position: That the way we are is etched indelibly in us at birth because of our gender. People on both extremes of the nature/nurture debate need to get over themselves and sit down, because there is not one solidly documented bit of research to prove it is anything but a combination of both.
Statements by either side of the debate, such as the extreme social position she argues against with all the fury and excitement of a five-year-old whacking a pinata (that all we are is determined by our environment), and her own bias (As Douglas Adams might put it: that women are women, men are men, and small fuzzy creatures from Alpha Centauri are small fuzzy creatures from Alpha Centauri; so it is now, so it has been, and so shall it ever be.) are both unhelpful and destructive. It's not good or wise to silence these points of view, but it is very good to call people who espouse them on it.