Though I've been a Republican (and occasional Libertarian) since I was old enough to vote, one of my favorite politicians remains a Democrat. Chicago's own Dan Rostenkowski served as chairman of the very powerful Ways and Means Committee until 1994 when he was voted out of office amongst corruption charges and disgust with the Democratic establishment in general. Richard Cohen's book is the first and (as far as I can tell) only full-length biography of this politician and its a fascinating read. Following Rostenkowski from his beginnings as an obscure lackey of Mayor Richard Daley in the '50s to his position as the most powerful man in Washington, D.C. in the late '80s and early '90s, and finally ending with his downfall, Cohen's book shows how this man came to power though the old fashioned politics of patronage and was eventually destroyed by them. Its also a finely nuanced investigation of a man who remained bluntly unglamorous as American politics were transformed into the world's most vapid beauty contest by the Clintons and their ilk. Even as you read about the man's flagrant abuse of power, its hard not to miss Dan Rostenkowski whose ill-fitting suits, cheap haircuts, and blue collar manner become all the more likeable in the face of our recent crop of lip-biting, pain-feeling, bridge-building politicians.

COHEN's book takes us from boyhood to the ignominious end of a political career -- and does so while telling a second and equally fascinating stoy about the changes in the American political system that accompanied, and ended, with the ROSTENKOWSKI era. For those who find Chicago politics -- where tombstones sometime vote -- to be worth a good read, this is a wonderful view of how all that worked in and around a Congressional district. For those who find the story of this Polish-American icon to be worthy of a book investment, this volume delivers 200%. For those who appreciate what a professional journalist with 30 years of Washington reporting can add to the ROSTENKOWSKI story by way of historical perspective and evolution, this is a book that cannot be missed.

Given that this genre tends to be dominated by either those writers who can no longer produce published work in their favorite area or those who stem from academia, this book provides a fresh look on what many of us know, yet need to be told again. New writers will find it full of helpful hints and strategies, while those more advanced in their fields will appreciate the time-honored insight Cohen provides. He makes a point of not sticking to the well-known, slick rules of standard writing, but rather encourages the reader to be creative in his or her own uniqueness. While walking the line of good advice without strict rules, Cohen is able to provide apropriate advice to all. Which, when it all comes down, is what we all want

This is THE diffinitive work on crafting fiction. Cohen goes through all parts of writing (plot, characters, etc.) and uses his own story as an example. He strays from the traditional "this is how you write" attitude and uses one that centers more on using your own creativity. This is an excellent book for writers of any level.

In this book the main characters were Sam, Davy, and Jackie. It was basically about that Jackie bacame a Brooklyn Dodger and became one of the world's greatest baseball player. Then this boy really became a fan of his. Jackie became really ill and sick ,and hit a home run for his best friend Sam. Jackie said "baseball will never be over". I will never ever recommend this book to a adult. If I ever did I would recommend this book to a child or a sportman. I think this book was the most boriest book I ever read. This book was held at Brooklyn Stadium and other places around Brooklyn.

I read Thank You, Jackie Robinson for a book report.This book was a really good book for a baseball fan, or just a sports fan.
This book not only talked about baseball but, it also had a great meaning. This book made me feel really great and happy when I read it. At one point in the book it was a bit sad but, I counld't stop reading it. The author, Barbara Cohen, wrote this book very well.She must haved loved writing this book because I really enjoyed reading it.Even if you don't like baseball or sports I still recomend this book.

This book, Thank You, Jackie Robinson is mostly about friendship. Well first of all I should tell you the character names, The main character is Sam and Davy and you can't forget Jackie Robison. Mrs. Cohen has expressed great description about the setting and everything she has to say. Sam and Davy love the Brooklyn Dodgers and they talk about the Dodgers all the time. Sam is especially attached to Davy because Sam doesn't have a father and Davy is like a father to him. Davy, first of all was the chef for thier Inn and Davy had a Daughter named Henrietta. Then Davy gets ill and sick and Sam wants to make him happy, so he goes to a Ball game and gets a ball that Jackie Robinson hit and got it adographed by all the players and in the middle Jackie says " Get better Davy." And then Davy dies. And I think mrs. Cohen made the reader want to read more because thier had a death. Now Sam has lost 2 great men in his life and has nobody to talk with about the games. But Sam thinks Davy is right next him in heaven and turns the game on after being in a misery and says " Hit the ball, Jackie, Hit the ball" And Jackie Robinson responses in a huge way when getting a hit and Sam rememberes Jackie rounding he bases, Oh does he remember!!!

This was a good book if you understand Eastern philosophy (If not, go back and read The Tao of Pooh). Cohen and Baber separate personality into several character types within ST and offer analyses based on these characters, with the ultimate goal being personal growth and development. NOT for light reading, but quite interesting if self-analysis-through-Trek is your "thing".

This self-help book uses Star Trek characters and episodes as role models to help you develope your own skills and strengths. As the authors point out, many people are more familiar with the Trek characters than with classical mythology or other hero tales which served as role models in past generations. Using the Trek universe as an archetypal mythology for personal growth is a clever, fun way to get the message across. As Spock would say: Fascinating!

According to the book, there are four basic types of heros: warriors, analyzers, relaters, and leaders. For each personality type, the book gives you examples from all the Star Trek shows (TOS, TNG, DS9 and VGR), then follows up with a visualization exercise in which you visit an imaginary holodeck and meet with the Trek characters, who serve as guides in your life. After each holodeck journey, you journal your thoughts and experiences.

These are the characters used for each heroic type:

1. Warriors: Worf, Kira, Scotty, B'Elana

2. Analyzers: Spock, Data, Odo, Tuvok

3. Relaters: Guinan, McCoy, Troi, Kes

4. Leaders: Kirk, Picard, Sisko, Janeway

Most of us start out stronger in one of these areas than the others, but really, we are a mix of all of them. Just as a starship crew has all these types, who work together to make the shipp run smoothly, so, too, do our personalities contain a mix of inner Spocks, McCoys, Picards, and Worfs. When you develope all your internal heros, you can achieve balance in your life and teamwork on the job.

The audiotape version of the book (also available here on Amazon as a download) is narrated by Armin Shimerman, who plays Quark on DS9. Don't worry, his real voice is a lot mellower than the voice he uses for Quark! In fact, he's so relaxing that I fell asleep the first time through. Not from boredom -- it was a hard day and I was tired. But this experience does suggest you probably shouldn't listen to this while driving on the freeway. On the other hand, if you play it at bedtime and fall asleep, you will learn subliminally.

I listened to this cassette and I am sure it will change my life. This cassette shows you how to make Star Trek and its superb characters an every day part of your living and growth as a human being. It explains how we can improve mankind and how we can bring the 'real' universe closer to the Star Trek universe. It is a must for any Trekker who is seeking to become more like her or his favorite Star Trek character or to fill the emptiness in his or her life. It will help you become a warrior like Worf, a leader like Kirk, a relator like Guinan, or an analyst like Spock. It is definately the best way to spend a few dollars

Yes, it's exhaustively comprehensive. Yes, it's district-by-district. And yes, it's over 1200 pages. However, the entire enterprise is in the end unsatisfying because of the constant undercurrent of bias.

Whether it's Barone comparing Bush's "more choice" to Gore's "more government," or his characterization of "observant, tradition-minded, moralistic" Bush voters opposing Gore voters that are "unobservant, liberation-minded, relativist," he continually finds ways to slightly polish conservative views and give a little tarnish to the liberal side of the spectrum.

The clincher for me was in the Presidential Politics segment for Florida when Barone writes of the beyond reproach fact of a Bush victory, while elaborating upon all the apparent shifty, underhanded tactics of the Gore camp. Whether or not the tactics were sinister is up for debate, but it's clear he didn't want to concede any points for the liberals, whether on Florida or on free-market ideology. This slight, but consistent bias isn't dangerous in and of itself; it's objectionable because it's coming from such a supposedly authoritative source.

I was a regular buyer of this series until I got so tired of Michael Barone's biases and editorializing that I ceased purchasing the new editions as I had been every two years. After hearing that the 2002 edition had (finally) toned down the flagrant lack of objectivity I decided to give it another try.

During my absence things have indeed improved. More facts and statistics have been added about states and congressional districts, political analysis Charlie Cook has added brief outlooks for every seat up for election in 2002, more information on redistricting is given, more extensive descriptions of states, districts, and backgrounds on office holders is provided and yes, Barone's editorial comments, while still present, have been drastically toned down and in some cases eliminated.

However, there are still obvious examples of his bias. Many pro NAFTA comments are made mentioning benefits states and districts have received since its passage while no mention is made at all of the jobs lost in those same areas (only to often be replaced by lower paying ones) and Barone regularly writes objectively about "cultural conservatives" while virtually anyone who isn't married, with 2.5 kids while living in the suburbs or a rural area (be it office holders or their constituents) is labeled, in a rather dismissive tone as part of the "feminist left," a term Barone does not seem to use in a neutral manner. Furthermore his recap of the Florida recount clearly takes a pro-Bush side, ignoring all his inconsistencies while maximizing Gore's despite blatant hypocrisy that was strong on both sides.

But overall this is a solid, if somewhat overpriced reference for political junkies elsewhere. If Barone can continue to scale back his editorializing in future editions, this series will has the potential to become one of the most important on the subject.

Michael Barone is clearly a man of immense energy and political insight. His biennial "Almanac of American Politics" has been a Washington tradition for 30 years now; and it keeps getting better.

I first discovered the Almanac in 1992 and have purchased copies every two years since. My '92 edition is dogeared, with pages falling out, yet I still consult it regularly.

Barone's in-depth background information in each state and Congressional district is a feature hard to find anywhere else (certainly not all in one place). His invaluable biographical information on members of congress (and governors) is essential to understand where these people are coming from, when one sees them on CSPAN.

But the statistical information is what I treasure most. The Almanac is a quick and easy reference for finding out how vulnerable an incumbant is, who ran against them before, how their state or district leans at the presidential level, etc. These statistics are really essential for a deep understanding of congressional politics today.

In the last few years, Barone has also been providing more information about state governments. Recently, he's added the names of the leaders of every state legislature and given longer biographies of the governors. In this era of devolution, such information is greatly needed.

Another newer addition is the predictions of Charlie Cook. Cook's analysis is appreciated although I wish he would be a little more creative in his writing ("...belies the competitive nature of the district" over and over).

Barone and Cook have an excellent track record in predicting elections, but naturally they are wrong at times too. For instance, they both considered Gov. Jesse Ventura a good bet for re-election (and Barone even hinted at a Presidential bid in 2004). Of course Ventura is not seeking re-election due to low approval ratings. Since the Alamanc comes out a year before the election its focused on, it is fun to follow along and see how accurate its forecasting ends up

Granted, Barone is a conservative and his bias does occassionally surface. This can be distracting and poorly placed at times (especially for an angry leftist like me). But objective journalism is basically non-existent in this country and Barone should be applauded for staying focused and unbiased more than most.

All said, the "Almanac of American Politics" is absolutely crucial for anyone who wants more than a superficial understanding of national politics today. Read it and you'll watch "Face the Nation" and "Meet the Press" in a whole different light. Buy it; it's more than worth the price.

I bought the 2003 edition of The Sports Encyclopedia: Baseball today, & as usual am overall pleased with the wealth of information in this very valuable book. However, there are a few problems which the editors need to resolve for future editions.This series has always been plagued by poor editing & typos, & the 2003 edition is no exception. In fact, there is one HUGE error that should never have gotten past whoever edited this edition. Turn to page 700 & you'll see it: instead of the statistics for the 2002 NL Championship Series between St. Louis & San Francisco the ones for the 2001 NLCS between Arizona & Atlanta have been reprinted. Someone should have caught this major blunder.Since this annual series does have typos & errors (what book with so much info doesn't?) the editors should provide their readers with an e-mail or snail mail address to notify them of mistakes so they can be corrected. I was able to do so in the 1980s & several errors were corrected. I hope the editors will be open to input from their readers once again, for that only strengthens the factual integrity of the book.I'm sure there are other mistakes but the one above is the reason I give The Sports Encyclopedia: Baseball 2003 a rating of 4 instead of 5. It will make a good addition to your baseball reference library, but it's probably a good idea to have another encylopedia handy to doublecheck the info. Trust, but verify, with all these huge statistical books, I say.

I published a review for the 2000 edition of this book not 2001 or 2002. Many of the reviews listed under this edition are for earlier editions and some comments may not pertain. Books like this one can change dramatically from year to year. Errors could be corrected, new errors introduced and there is always a whole new season of statistics that has an effect on the flavor of the book. For instance 2002 was the year that Bonds broke McGwire's homerun record, so I am sure that there is coverage of that. These books are not worth buying every year. But these authors do a credible job and I would expect this to be of similar quality to the one I own. I would suggest buying a copy once every 5 years if you are a baseball enthusiast and only every year if you are a fanatic. However for sports statistic fanatics it may be that Total Baseball has more information.

This book does a great job of giving a one-source place to see how every player did for a particular team in a particular year.

If you're not particularly interested in what happened before 1901, this is a must-have. But being an amateur student of 19th century baseball, I do wish they'd expand their coverage to at least go back to 1876, including the start of the National League, and include other recognized major leagues before 1901 (the American Association, Players League and Union Association).

I give it five stars for what it does since 1901. But because "major league" baseball goes back to 1876 and arguably 1871 (with the National Association), I have to take a star away because it feels "incomplete."

We read this text from cover to cover for our pre-doc endo course at NSU. To say the least, the text was wordy and often got distracted with details that are insignificant to the general practitioner and unnecessary for the pre-doc student. The faculty at nova have promised to review other texts in preparation for next year's class. Trust me, this book will force you to wade through a sea of useless information to find the clinically pertinant information. Don't waste your time unless you are obsessed with details. I hope this was helpful.

I still use this book when I do endo. The pictures of access openings for EVERY TOOTH are a great help. There is a page or 2 devoted to each tooth, with many possible canal variations, and average canal lengths. Good for a beginner, and for someone who still hasn't done enough endos to memorize the average lenght of every canal.

This book is the most in depth, scholarly written book on endo on the market next to the Dental Pulp (by Seltzer). There's ample literature references in each chapter and it's a great preparation tool for specialty boards. While the book is too science based/not enough show-and-tell for most predoctoral students and general dentists (Endodontic Therapy, by Walton is a better choice there), Pathways is best for post doctoral students and practicing endodontists.

The Red Sox Trivia Book was published in 1993, so it only covers history until 1992. It does provide a brief (50-page) history of the Red Sox, followed by crossword puzzles and trivia questions, and an all-time player list as of 1992. The questions themselves might be challenging for the average fan, but a real Red Sox trivia buff will not find them all that obscure. And they're directly based on the history chapter, so if you're going to buy the book to answer the trivia questions, try them before reading the history, or you'll likely be disappointed.

It is really good. It includes all kinds of different trivia questions about the Red Sox history, past and present day. I suggest it.

For nursing undergraduates volume one was an adequate introduction to Hermeneutic Phenomenological Research. A beginners guide only. As wider reading is required to acquire an understanding of this complex philosophical approach to doing research, this volume is a distinct improvement. It is, however, as overpriced as the first.

This is an excellent book for nurse researchers interested in learning H/P analysis. As a doctoral student preparing to do this type of research, I found this book extremely informative and practical.

When I wrote my first review of this book I had just read the first two chapters and I was incensed at the number of mistakes they contained. I've now read the rest of the book and have received correspondence from the author. My view of the book is now a little different.

Don't get me wrong, the chapters on the early history of fencing are still replete with errors. To answer some points made by other reviewers, horse armour WAS in the vicinity of 60lbs, not 450, for example, the 15th century Gothic horse armour that forms the centrepiece of the Wallace Collection weighs 66lb, 5 1/2 oz. Medieval fencing systems did rely heavily on parries with the sword. For example, Manuscript I.33, a sword and buckler (small shield) manual and the oldest extant fencing text displays parries with the blade on about 35 of its 64 plates. These far outnumber the parries made with the buckler. The reviewer who claimed that the blade was not used for parries might care to explain this manuscript and indeed all the other medieval manuscripts, because every one teaches parries with the blade, from I.33's overbinds and underbinds to Fiore Dei Liberi's incrosada's, Ringeck's absetzen etc. etc.

La Destreza, the system of Spanish rapier fencing created by Don Hieronymo Carranza may not be comprehensible to Mr Cohen, but it is comprehensible to me. It is more than comprehensible to Maestro Ramon Martinez, the world's foremost expert on the system, who as Tony Wolf stated, lives in the same city as Mr Cohen. I have fenced Spanish rapier and consider it to be a suberb and most logical system. In fact Maestro Martinez and I have written a paper on the system. Too many hatchet jobs have been done on La Destreza. Carranza's contemporaries (such as George Silver) wrote in praise of his system. Credit them with some discernment.

Finally and most importantly, medieval fencing systems were every bit as sophisticated as any fencing system from any period of history. The oldest fencing treatise in existence is the aforementioned MSS. I.33, referenced in "By the Sword". I don't believe that anyone can read this treatise and claim a lack of sophistication in medieval fencing. All the core principles behind modern fencing, timing, distance, line, blade sensitivity, parries, beats, binds etc. are present in this, the very oldest work there is. As an Italian fencing master I know said when he saw it, "It is being so good that I think it to be a false". He was astounded to see so much sophistication at our earliest substantive point in the fencing record. But, why should he have been astounded? Men have been fighting with swords for thousands of years. Their lives depend on them doing it well. Of course they developed good combat systems.

In case Mr Cohen doesn't read medieval Latin (the language of I.33) he should have taken a look at Christian Tobler's "Secrets of German Medieval Swordsmanship". This is a translation and analysis of Sigmund Ringeck's treatise of c. 1440. I don't believe that any impartial observer could read this book and deny the subtlety and sophistication of medieval swordsmanship.

In my first review my signature contained my title as editor of Spada, the world's only peer reviewed journal devoted to the history of fencing. I did this in the hope that people would read this title and recognise that here was someone who didn't make statements on this subject without being 100% sure of his facts. I'm sorry to have to embarass those people who didn't appreciate this point.

So, why does this matter? Am I just being a pedant? Well, no, because Mr Cohen has essentially denied the existence of the arts that I study, both academically and physically. So I feel that my criticisms are justified. Saying, "hang on, the subject that I've devoted my life to studying does exist" is hardly pedantry. The level of scholarship in the first two chapters of "By the Sword" is simply not acceptable given current knowledge on the subject.

However...

That's the first two chapters and there are a lot more than two chapters. As is my wont, I stuck with the book and found that it improved dramatically. Once the author is on topics about which he is more familiar (basically once fencing becomes recognisably modern)the book improves dramatically. I enjoyed it and I learned a lot about a sport I've been involved with for decades. I hope that people read the book and become enthusiastic about fencing. I also hope they read this review and look more deeply into the rich history of fencing. I hope publishers realise the deep interest the public has in swordsmanship and I also hope that future authors make use of the easily available material on historical fencing.

There is a lot more to "By the Sword" than the early history of the art, but that's what I'm primarily interested in, hence the fact that it still only gets two stars. However, it deserves praise for what it does well, praise that it didn't get in my first review. At the time I wrote that I had yet to read a part of the book that deserved any praise. Hence this second review. I still have mixed feelings about "By the Sword". Like the little girl in the rhyme, when it's good it's very, very good and when it's bad, it's horrid.

Sincerely
Stephen Hand

Richard Cohen's recent release, 'By the Sword', must be the best book I've read on the fencing process.

As an experienced international athlete and publisher, the author combines his knowledge as an experienced blade user with an eye for a good story. While his largely anecdotal approach may frustrate academic historians, it lends itself well to explaining the process of fencing to those who have never held a sword.

The context of the fencing process is something Cohen captures better than many treatises that have been consigned to the history of armed combat. That the sport has a history is important, but only to a point. This is something the author clearly appreciates. He has obviously read historical and more recent works as a fencer; a fact that may disturb the crustier historians who'd prefer a drier objectivity. Possibly even a pedantic accuracy. But I suspect the author's approach of placing historical bladework in the context of the rules and conventions of today's game is more likely to yield returns for those who see themselves as participants.

Though this book will appeal to fencers, the author has written for a much wider audience. I found the contents list covered a range of topics that often come up in coversation with non-fencing friends. For instance, staged bladework for movies such as the most recent James Bond. Chapters dealing with duelling, espionage and organised cheating represent a darker side that continues to fascinate the non-fencing public, to the dismay of the sporting community.

Richard Cohen, former olympian, is still an active sabre fencer.
Perhaps it takes a veteran sabreur to fully appreciate his history of swordskills. This book kept me awake until I'd read the last page during a longhaul flight. I look forward to its sequel.

I'm with the reviewers that loved the book. It shows rarely seen aspects of sword fighting and its modern day descendant of fencing. I enjoyed the historical perspective (I expect the author is largely accurate since he studied original documents). Pedantry aside, I especially enjoyed the stories of modern high-level fencing: both the glorious and the down-and-dirty. Long time fencers will recognise familiar parts of their world, and non-fencers will get a chance to learn about the sport and the martial origins that make it special.