Hoffman and Bailey have compiled a couple hundred brief descriptions of fads from the United States. The focus is on fads from the last 50 years. There isn't any analysis of what fads really are, or what makes them happen, but it's interesting reading. It's enjoyable for anyone interested in fads, but I particularly recommend it for younger readers.

Although Buckley crafts his story well, this book serves only as a platform for him to express his inflated self importance. It is uninteresting and useless as a sailing narrative. The only reason I continued to read was in expectance of a point. Don't make the same mistake.

A delightful, real life, father/son saga about a months sail West across the South Pacific; Captained by William F Buckley with a crew comprising his son, Chrisopher Buckley and several other artistic and political luminaries of the 1980's.

On this voyage, WFB required each of the crew to keep (and relinquish at journeys end) a personal journal. WFB keeps the writing crisp and engaging by sharing only small portions of these apparently limited and hard won loggings.

All in all: A delightfully recounted adventure.

I've been looking for this book for years after reading an enchanting three part excerpt of it in the NewYorker:

In this aptly named book Buckley amply demonstrates the dangers of fame, as he has become so pompously self indulgent that he imagines his every thought is gospel to be doted on by his faithful devotees. No doubt his disciples will agree, but the rest of us are just bored. Buckley made his name as a witty and vicious eloquent exponent of conservative political thinking, but there is nothing political here. Truth to be told, there is nothing remotely interesting here, much less profound. Stripped of his politics, Buckley is revealed as a Howard Stern-like shameless self-promoter. Buckley is great writer, no doubt, but even his fine prose cannot make this drivel readable. Meandering and pointless, this book is truly only interesting to those who wish to study the delusions of those that society labels as 'important'. Of course it's easy to be conservative when everything is handed to you on a silver platter. With such a background, it is no great achievement to be considered 'important'. There are thousands of articulate intellectuals who could have done what Buckley did if they had had his wealthy parents. It's especially important to note, that for all his self-aggrandizement, his wealthy background made his success as a publisher a given. If he failed, some wealthy relative would simply bail him out. It is no surprise that an over educated spoiled son of privilege should become the spokesman for the arrogant nobles obligees set. Stick to 'Up from Liberalism'.

Frank Smith was truly a man with ideas before his time! He fought and sacrificed to ensure everyone had the same rights that are guaranteed all under our Constitution. This was unheard of in the segregated South in the '50 and '60s. "Mississippi Liberal" is an excellent history of the Mississippi Delta and the environment that shaped the ideas and life of the Congressman from Mississippi--Frank E. Smith. A man who worked hard to make a difference for all races... and he did! A very comprehensive work by Dr. Dennis J. Mitchell--A superb job!

The blurb on the cover of THE RAT PACK says "They had fun" but there's precious little fun to be found here. This book is a tedious listing of (mostly negative) events. It lacks any sparkle and vigor, and if I believed half of it, I'd have to wonder just what the appeal of this group of overgrown adolescents could be. There had to be more.

The Chairman of The Board is the centerpiece as an egomaniacal bully who uses his star power to make the world feel indebted to him. His reported temper tantrums seem utterly absurd. Anyone who used his fists or threats of mob violence as much as the authors claim Sinatra did, should have and would have been locked up, "different era" or no. The Frank Sinatra in these pages wouldn't be a "King of Cool". He wouldn't be anything much.

The rest of the boys orbit around Frank like some kind of an inebriated solar system. The boozing and skirt-chasing is leaden, so where's the thrill? Where are the laughs? If this book is at all accurate (and it isn't, listing Dean Martin's date of death incorrectly), it means that this group of supremely talented entertainers valued nothing, not even themselves.

The bulk of the book is made up of mostly scathing summaries of the Rat Pack movies. Nary a word is said about either Frank or Dean's musical careers. Sammy Davis Jr. is dismissed as little more than the Rat Pack houseboy. Peter Lawford is depicted as a sexually confused drug addict craving the attention of the others. Joey Bishop is virtually forgotten. The Rat Pack Mascots (Shirley MacLaine and Angie Dickinson) get barely honorable mentions (MacLaine far more than Dickinson). One has to wonder why Shirley MacLaine would continue to associate with The Rat Pack after being assaulted by mobster Sam Giancana twice in their company. The book begs an answer. MacLaine is no slouch, so obviously more and better was happening with the "Clan" than this sordid book deigns to tell us. (...)

This book is a waste of money. It is a collection of movie reviews starring Rat Packers strung together and pretending to be a book. Only the very most die hard movie fans should consider checking this out of the library but save your money.

Here is the deal. If you are just starting to get into the Rat Pack or any of the players individually. Then this book is a good start. I would call it the Cliff notes of the individuals and their movies. If you have seen all the movies including the Matt Helm movies or if you have already read books on Dean, Frank, Sammy's biography then you are way ahead of this book and pass it by.

But if you have not seen the movies and want to learn the basics of each man and then from there search into each one of them seperatly then this is a good starter. There are some great books on all the guys but you will finded Sammy's Biography to be the most fun. Remember to check out deanmartinfancenter.com for more info on the Rat Pack. For the guys who wrote this you could have given us some fun facts or answered some questions, instead they read everyone else book and put together their own version.

The reason I give the new CSIS study on Russian organized crime merely one star, is that it fails to meet elementary standards of scientific inquiry. The CSIS shows no interest in theoretical issues, nor does it contain a discussion of the methodological problems that are inherent in any study of crime phenomena. Unsurprisingly, the findings of the research are based in large part on press reports, and perhaps also unsurprisingly, only point in one direction: the US face a serious threat from Russian organized crime. Now, press reports and descriptive, non-theoretical work of course can offer information that may be of use in research, and also the CSIS study in this respectmay be of interest. Nevertheless, the reader can only use this kind of information if he or she has the impression that authors handle information sincerely, otherwise one does not know what to believe and what not. In this respect the CSIS report falls short in a big way. This becomes obvious when one looks at how it handles the study by Finckenauer and Waring ('Russian Mafia in America', 1998), a study that does live up to the requirements mentioned above, but that comes to a quite different conclusion than the one the CSIS reaches. I found only one referenceby the CSIS to this work (on p.22: "A recent nationwide survey of police agencies revealed that at least 34 states have some contact with ROC in émigré communities"). The reference suggests that the survey confirms the image of dramatic proliferation of the Russian mafia, while in fact the opposite is the case. Finckenauer and Waring conclude: "Our conclusion - which may be startling to some - is that the Russian organized crime in America widely known as the Russian Mafia is first, not Russian; second, not a mafia; and third, not even organized crime" (1998, p.xiv). If the CSIS has access to information that refutes this indeed remarkable conclusion, it should have presented it. The only impression the reader now gets it that the CSIS simply did not do its job properly. From an institution on the board of which we find many functionaries from the CIA and other government agencies, and which gives advice to policy circles in the US, we should have expected a more convincing handling of the subject - how reasonable or not the advice given may be. Now the reader is left with the impression that Finckenauer and Waring were right when they wrote that "The label Russian mafia offers a convenient hook for understanding but at the same time sensationalizes matters so as to peak interest. It thus serves both law enforcement and media interests"? (1998, p. 250).