Nash gives us a chapter by chapter review of most every famous celebrity murder occuring from 1877 (Jim Fisk) to 1982 (Sunny Von Bulow). His details about the murders are very good. In some chapters he gives a strong psychological evaluation of the killer. In others he doesnt, so you have to figure out why the killer did what they did. I guess Nash did most of his writing from secondary sources, so one can see that some murders flat out puzzled people. Overall I really enjoyed this book.

This book provides a good overview of residental community associations. It provides practical information about the relationship of RCA's and government in an easy to understand format.

As a teacher of writing at the college level, I would recommend this book for students who are frightened of required research writing. In fact, each section has the proverbial "panic button" at its end. I intend to purchase a copy for my high school senior to take to college next year.

From Louis Masset on Jan. 9, 1900 to Joseph M. Majczek in May 29, 1983. This book gives a dated and graphic acoount of every Headliner in the business. It includes the real interviews, with some of the criminals themselves. It is divided into the major areas of crime. Take your pick and enjoy the ride.

Truth in advertising? This is solely about the U.S., with a very few token entries on people and place outside it. Nothing on the Triads, nothing on the Golden Triangle, nothing on Marseilles or Hong Kong, nothing on modern international gangs such as the Jamaicans or Nigerians, etc., etc. I returned my copy to Amazon in great disappointment. If you want biographies of some U.S. figures (only some: nothing on Harold Meltzer, for example) with ugly pictures, this might be of some use. But it's solely oriented to personalities, not to analysis

Trying to find a good reference book about organized crime? Want one at a good price? Jay Robert Nash has created the perfect book for you with World Encyclopedia of Organized Crime from De Capo Press.

The over 600 pages of the Who's Who in organized crime is covered in an A to Z format. From Joe Adonis, Al Capone, Lucky Luciano, Bugs Moran and so many others, you'll find the fascinating stories and cross-references.

You may find other books more detailed, but I have found this book to be complete in the overall number of people covered. The book is an easy read and the index makes it easy to look up anybody or any topic.

You'll be hard pressed to find a better value for your money. About the only thing missing is a cd-rom software application.

I don't think there has to be much explanation here. I've been studying the American Mafia for a couple of years and I have never seen or found such a variety of information. I have movies and books alike and I have to say that this is probably my best investment in any book or movie I own.

Cults in our Midst casts light onto a mysterious subject: cults. Many people hold misconceptions about cults, myths that make most people vulnerable to their influence. The common stereotype about cults is that they are religious and that only uneducated or mentally weak people join cults. Singer's book shatters these misconceptions. Although religious cults have made headline news in the past several decades, the reality is that cults can and do form around secular and mundane issues. There are cults forming around physical fitness, psychiatry, psychology, philosophy, dieting, etc. Furthermore, cult members are usually well educated members of the middle-class. Some cult members were college students, university professors, doctors, and lawyers.

What is a cult? Singer defines a cult as an organization that utilizes all of its resources for the betterment of the group's leader or upper echelons at the expense of the members. The leader dictates the activities of the members. The leader employs subtle psychological and physiological persuasion techniques such as visual imagery and restrictive dieting to deceive, manipulate, and abuse followers.

Singer argues that everyone is susceptible to a cult. Contrary to popular belief, cult recruiters behave friendly and courteously to potential recruits. Recruiters often entice victims by seemingly able to satisfy the latter's desires, whether they be religious, political, idealistic, or others.

Singer's book also focuses on the relationship between cults and the outside world, on how cultic members can leave cults, and the effects of cultic influence on former members after leaving cults.

Contrary to some critics of this book, Singer does not regard all new religious movements and organizations as cultic. This book does not disparage new ideas. Rather this book serves to warn people to be cautious about joining groups.

Cults in our Midst is a must read for everyone. Singer's book exposes the myriad practices of cults to alert people to their influence and to enable them to detect when a seemingly innocuous group is a cult. Almost every former cult member regretted joining a cult because they wasted many years of their lives satisfying the needs of a greedy leader.

Another good book on cults is entitled Shurangama Sutra: Fifty Skandha Demon States.

Many would-be earlier critics here have tried to make it seem like Dr. Singer is somehow intolerant of "alternative religions;" a politically correct (PC) term used by the members of many cults, questionable organizations and various liberal ideologists. Trust me, any professor who is truly intolerant doesn't have the vast positive regard of her peers that Dr. Singer has, and she wouldn't last long on a campus nowadays. Her research methodologies and subsequent writings conformed to the best tradition of the empirical and scientific psychology. Dr. Singer made it amply clear (to anyone who has half a brain and no hidden agendas) that she acknowledged the difference between new age groups versus cults and similar, and she made it amply clear that her book is absolutely no criticism of the new age movement.

However to paraphrase Hitler, if you yell a lie loudly and long enough eventually people will come to see it as the truth. Hence it's a common tactic of cults and similar--and the politically correct that are infesting our schools and universities--to give cult experts such as Dr. Singer, Mr. Rick Ross (or anyone else who dares actually say what they truly think/feel nowadays) those negative PC labels. Seemingly this is the era of the "chronically offended" ideologists who simply legally forces their minority extreme views onto the moderate majority; but isn't a democracy about the MAJORITY? Free speech seems to be more correlated to how much money one can afford to pay lawyers than to the truth. Case in point: If you were hoping to find the same large group awareness group (LGAT) information that was in the hard cover edition of this book you'll be very disappointed. The retired Dr. Singer simply could not afford the litigation costs to maintain her true and complete opinions on LGAT's publicly, and as a retired professor she no longer has the financial resources of her former university. In a land of free speech, it's appalling how chronically offended ideologists, cult apologists and forum freaks can literally suppress research, research data and the open exchange of ideas to the general public simply because its offends such groups' highly subjective non scientific views. Just because something "sounds true," "feels good," or was said by Gary Zukov on Oprah or by the seminar/forum leader doesn't mean that it is always true! Your mind is a terrible thing to waste. Read this book, or better yet the hard cover edition; and the mind you save may be your own.

Dr. Singer has written a very valuable resource for all readers who are interested in cults, who have a loved one in a cult, or who, like myself -- ended up being greatly deceived by a cult. Dr. Singer was supportive and helpful to me when I finally extracted myself from the cult I had been a member of for six years. She took the time to speak to me numerous times on the telephone and through various e-mails. Her book is a tremendous resource for anyone interested in this subject. It is literally one of the best published and I've researched religious cults for over a decade now. For a comprehensive look at mind altering organizations, this is a book no one should pass up.

If you are really interested in what happened between Turks and Armenians in 1915,i can suggest you to read Heath Lowry's The Story Behind Ambassador Morgenthau's Story.Professor Heath Lowry is a well-known historian in Princeton University and in his book,he proves Ambassador Morgenthau's Story wrong scientifically,shows how the book is based on rumors.A must to read for those who are interested in this matter...

The book is advisable only when one reads it with Heath W. Lowry' s "The Story Behind Ambassador Morgenthau' s Story", published by ISIS Press, Istanbul in 1990. As Dr. Lowry describes:

"The answer is simple and relates to the fact that Morgenthau was writing a piece of wartime propaganda with the expressly stated purpose of mobilising support for President Wilson's war effort. He consciously down played the close relationships he enjoyed with the Young Turk leadership throughout his sojourn in Constantinople and sacrificed truth for the greater good of helping to generate anti-Turkish sentiment which would transform itself into pro-war sentiment."

Unfortunately the American public opinion during that time was based on such sources as the services of Dragaman (translators) between the officials of the Ottoman Empire and the American Ambassador. And these dragaman were not Ottoman Turks but Ottoman Armenians and Ottoman Greeks both were in conflict with the Ottoman Empire. Ambassador Morgenthau used two of them, two Armenians, namely Hagop S. Andonian (personal secretary) and Arshag K. Schmavonian (legal assistant). The printed copy however went through severe war time propaganda editing by the US Secretary of State, Robert Lensing and Pulitzer award winning author, Burton J. Hendrick.

One of the most dramatic incidents and the diversion of the facts were about the life insurance benefits of the deceased Armenian insurers of an American Insurance company. The book claims that Talaat, the Ottoman Interior Minister, made a request to him that the Ambassador should help to facilitate payment the insurance benefits to the Ottoman Treasury, as there were no heirs to the insurers! However, Dr. Lowry proved that after reading the actual dated letters, the request of the Ottoman Minister was to stop the American Insurance Company from transferring their capital funds from Ottoman Empire to France, and thereby preserving sufficient capitalization for any benefits claims. Such diversion of the facts is extremely dangerous.

It is therefore an important document about the wartime journalism and subsequent unfortunate diversions of the facts to base Armenian claims of 1915. We could only be grateful to Dr. Lowry that he shed light into the story with his review of the original letters stored in FDR Library and in the National Achieves.

Ambassador Morgenthau has always been one of the most reliable sources on the Armenian Genocide. No surprise that so many attempts have been made to tarnish his image, or to question his testimonies on the terrible crime committed by the Ottoman Empire against its Christian Armenian subjects. Yet, the Morgenthau version of the 1915 events is abslutely irrefutable, and I strongly recommend this book to those interested in finding out what has really happened during the agony of the "ill man of Europe".

Is it not odd that one of the most competent and serious of the seemingly endless number of Houghton Mifflin's "Best American Series" so far, in 2002, has but one other Amazon review three months after publication and after a holiday-advertising blitz? (I know Eggers' AMERICAN NONREQUIRED READING 2002 is supposed to seem whimsical and therefore attractive--but along with "Best American Recipes," I question Houghton Mifflin's sagacity. What's new for 2003--"Best American Greeting Cards"?)

I agree with the sole other Amazonian that this is far from the strongest volume in the series. Gould, in his last act of editing, admits in the introduction that he spent most of his time writing, not reading. Here, it seems his editorial judgment was more swayed by authorial track records and the Topic of the Moment (9-11) than by the enduring nature of the essays' prose itself. Or perhaps Gould simply had a tin ear with respect to style, so intrinsic to the success and timelessness of creative nonfiction.

Taste is personal, too. I concur with the other reviewer that Franzen's "My Father's Brain" and Vidal's "The Meaning of Timothy McVeigh" are lackluster essays--but unlike him, I wasn't bowled over by Delbanco's "The Countess of Stanlein Restored," about a cello's restoration.

My favorite essay by far was Mario Vargas Llosa's "Why Literature?" Filled with bon mots and wisdom, this essay is the one I found most enduring and worth rereading. "Good literature, while temporarily relieving human dissatisfaction, actually increases it, by developing a critical and nonconformist attotude toward life." This, and dozens of other quotable lines, made me sigh with recognition and underline/bracket the text.

My next favorite was Andrew Levy's portrait of Robert Carter III, "The Anti-Jefferson." I never had heard of Carter and was convinced by Levy that he should be better known and revered in American history.

My remaining favorites are as follow: Jacques Barzun's "The Tenth Muse," a critique of popular culture; Rudolph Chelminski's "Turning Point," my favorite of the many 9-11 essays, which focuses on the artist Philippe Petit, who tightrope-walked between the Twin Towers in 1974; Bernard Cooper's "Winner Take Nothing," about the writing life and father/son relationships; Atul Gawande's "Final Cut," about the dwindling popularity of autopsies; Sebastian Junger's "The Lion in Winter," about war reporting, the Taliban, and Afghanistan; Amy Kolen's "Fire," a disturbingly memorable exploration of the 1911 Triangle factory fire; Adam Mayblum's "The Price We Pay," a first-hand account of 9-11 which, despite its rawness, maintains vitality and relevance; Louis Menand's "College: The End of the Golden Age," an insightful critique of higher education in America; Danielle Ofri's "Merced," a poignant reflection by a physician; Darryl Pinckney's sociologically-astute "Busted in New York," about being jailed for pot smoking; Joe Queenen's brief and wry "Matriculation Fixation," about parental obsessions with childrens' educational paths; John Sack's illuminating "Inside the Bunker," which examines the psychology of Holocaust-deniers; and, finally, Penny Wolfson's haunting, impressionistic, poetic meditation on life, disability, and art entitled "Moonrise."

Six remaining essays go unmentioned. I found them ordinary. However, if you take this reviewer's word for it, there remains prose worth perusing in this less-than-stellar but still-worthwhile addition to a series worth perpetuating.

I had the false impression that the writing and thoughts in this year's Best American Essays would be overwhelmed by the events of September 11, but this book provides a lot of breadth and depth. Gould's selections are excellent; I can't think of a single essay here that does not have some kind of redeeming value. Jacques Barzun's The Tenth Muse and Mario Vargas Lhosa's "Why Literature?" are the requisite but eloquent pieces about the nature and necessity of art. Danielle Ofri's "Merced" is a standout piece: about how a young doctor learns about the fallibility of medicine through a patient's unsolvable illness. I disagree with the reviewers here who found Gore Vidal's "The Meaning of Timothy McVeigh" unworthy of inclusion in the volume; the essay shows another view on the perpetrator of the Oklahoma City bombing that warrants us to consider why some people commit acts of terror, though the piece ultimately fails when Vidal utilizes tired and trite anti government rhetoric. Nicholas Delblanco's "The Countess of Stanlein Restored" is an absorbing history of the origins and restoration of a Stradivarius cello. Adam Mayblum's "The Price We Pay" does not have the polish and pyrotechnics we expect from some of these essayists, but his straightforward telling of his escape from the World Trade towers on September 11 makes for a harrowing recounting of the events.

This year's installment of the Best American Essays is a great selection (but then aren't they always). It was one of the last projects Stephen Jay Gould finished before he died last May. Of course there are all kinds of arguments that can be made for and against certain selections being included and not included.

Three essays really got to me as the best of the bunch (and essays that I imagine I'll reread again and again in the future). The first is Franzen's essay on his father's decline in Alzheimer's. It's a touching essay that is well-written, humorous at times, and helps to understand the 'human' reaction to the disease. The other essays is Bernard Cooper's "Winner Take Nothing" which is a very funny interplay between a father and son who don't understand each other. I remember reading it in GQ, and thinking that this essay surely would be selected for the Best American series. Nicholas Delbanco's essay "The Countess of Stanlein Restored" is a wonderfully written essay that covers the history of violin making and the restoration of one of the more famous violins, and anyone who loves music will love this essay.

Barbara Ehrenreich has an essay discussing her ordeal with breast cancer, and what makes this essay so good is that it isn't all the hopefulness and joy you find in others of its type, rather she deals with the real emotions she felt-the bitterness. And with an almost tongue-in-cheek humor. Sebastion Junger has his 'typical' style essay dealing with the fight for freedom in Afganistan. It's well-written, like his work tends to be. Andrew Levy's essay on Robert Carter III shows why we don't know who Carter is-he just isn't quite interesting enough to write about. There's also an interesting essay by Danielle Ofri on one incident in her medical school training (this essay has convinced me to pick up her collection of memoir essays on med school). There's a great essay by Darryl Pinckney dealing with a middle-aged, middle-class black man getting busted for marijuana possession. It's funny and frightening at the same time. Typical New Yorker material though. Gore Vidal has an essay on McVeigh-which is at times well-written, but at other times borders on the paranoid and juvenile. It is an interesting read though. And the final essay of the collection is Wolfson's "Moonrise" which is another autobiographical essay dealing with the illness of a relative-this one of her son. It's a touching essay that fills the reader with sadness and joy.

Some of the weaker essays are: Jacques Barzun's "The Tenth Muse" which is part biography of Clifton Fadiman and part question on culture, but doesn't ever say anything. And there are the group of obligatory 9-11essays, though not the best I've seen. Amy Kolen has an extremely dull essay, "Fire," which I found so boring, I couldn't even finish it.

From the very start, it is plain the Goldbergs lack any primary sources for their book, since there the exploration of Turner's character and personal decisions tend to be more conjecture than anything else. This book seems to do a good job of listing each of the various public decisions and people in Turner's life, but the important decisions and events are glossed over. For instance: The Goldbergs repeatedly note how Turner micromanaged his companies, only promoted from within, and didn't allow his senior managers and board to make major decisions. Yet, by the time CNN was created, Turner was clearly ignoring his billboard company, and TBS seemed to be cranking along fine. What did Turner think of these people, and what were they doing that made the cash flow possible for Turner to lose so much money while CNN was started up?

The book also has a facination with the chronology of his womanizing. While distaining his extramarital sexual adventures, the Goldbergs seem to do little more than count the notches in Turner's bedpost. Sure they do some pop-psychological analysis, but has no discussion of how his womanizing may have affected other parts of his life, family, and businesses -- especially when the affairs became so blatently open in the 70's and 80's.

Read this book if you want to know what happened in Turner's life up until the First Gulf War (the book was written before Turner's empire was bought by Time Warner), but don't expect a whole lot of insight to his personal life and business genius.

The Goldbergs tie Ted Turner into such a tight package that the reader is left with the impression that their impression is one-sided. But his monomorphism seems to naturally follow his fascinating upbringing and the shaping of an incredible domineering father. And then, when one hears post-Citizen Turner interviews and follows the news about Ted, the authors are vindicated. They've got him pegged! Very easily readable

This hardcover version of The Federalist (papers) comes is a nice package so to speak. The end of the book contains both the Declartion of Indepenence and the Constitution. Unlike most other Federalist papers books which are written as paperbacks using cheap newsprint paper, this uses a higher quality and brighter paper. The nice part about this book, unlike alotof others is that it contains the dates for each paper... alot of reproductions don't have this.

After reading the book however, I became quite concerned
because I noticed immediately that the author (intentionally or unintentionally) changed many of the words in the The Federalist!! This annoys me to no end. It's extremely bad practice for purposes of history, to change words in historical documents, because those "translated" words might accidentally get passed to future generations without aknowledgement that that wasn't what the founding fathers actualy wrote. I noticed at least a dozen changed words... there are probably thousands of errors for all I know.. This is bad, bad, bad.

Heres an example from Federalist Paper #1: (pg. 3)
This book writes: "After a full experience of the insufficiency of the existing federal government, you are invited to deliberate upon a new Constitution for the United States of America..."

Every other book in existence writes: "AFTER an unequivocal experience of the inefficacy of the subsisting federal government, you are called upon to deliberate on a new Constitution for the United States of America...."

Notice the subtle, yet immensely importance difference in words.
Now what gives this dumb author the right as a scholarly academian to change the words of our founding fathers. In fact, I don't even know which version is truly correct?? (I assume the majority rules, so this book comes out the loser.)

And these errors continue right through Federalist paper #1, and several others that I noticed... Maybe even all of them!

Also, the author has a nasty habit of decapitalising words which should be capitalized in historical conext. Our founding fathers, as was customary grammar at the time, capitalized many words in the middle of the sentance. I don't fully understand the details of antiquated English, however, when I buy a book on historical figures, I expect, nay, I demand, that the reproduction be produced in exactly the manner in which it was presented by our founding fathers. It can be difficult to understand antiquated English, especially some of the stuff written by James Madison, however, I'd rather do the mental translation myself.

It's a nice book, but I cannot in good conscience give this
anything above 2 stars. In fact, I think it deserves no stars.

NOTE: After researching the matter a little bit, it occurs to me that there are actually two common distinct "translations" and this book presents just one of them.... so I take back blaming the editor. I'm not sure of the origin of these modern translations... but it does seem that this version is much less popular than what is presented in other Federalist Paper repros.
I still claim that this version is error.

This is a very nice edition of the Federalist's Papers. An idea which was inaugurated by James Hamilton to help abate the opposition which was expected toward the newly written constitution.

This Modern Library edition has several features which sets it apart from other editions. First, the editor's introduction (by Robert Scigliano of Boston College) is quite informative and helpful for those who are just getting started in their study and research of American history. And yet it is detailed enough to be informative for those who have a stronger background in American Revolutionary history. Second, the appendices include The Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and the Constitution of the U.S. along with the amendments. Third, the book has a short but nice bibliography, as well as a nice and very useful index. All these features helped to set this particular edition apart from other editions that I have owned or read.

Of course, the Federalist writings are some of the key writings in American Revolutionary history. Every American should be required to read them since they were written with the intent of promoting the ratification of the constitution. These writings contain the ideas and development of the American system of government, the separation of powers, how congress is to be organized, and the positions of the executive, judicial, and legislative branches of government. This work provides its reader with the thoughts, inspirations, and brilliance behind the American Constitution and development of American government.
I highly recommend this edition of the Federalists.