I wouldn't say it's a great work of literature but Bruno does an excellent job describing the life of the professional killer. For whatever reason, the book was able to really capture my attention. I read it in a few hours.

The book, at times, read like one of Bruno's novels. Other times, like true crime from St. Martin's press. Well, now that we're all confused, let me say this: it's not all bad. The Iceman (Richard Kuklinski) is a very interesting killer. I wish the book focused more on him than one of the undercover agents who sought to bring him down because the cops are always the stereotypicals who eat poorly and feel guilty about not spending enough time with their family. Big yawn! I also found some of Kuklinski's murder claims dubious. Specifically the Roy DeMeo hit. 'Nuff said, capice?

This is the title of the New York Times article (2/21/03, page B1) about the current criminal charges leveled at serial killer Richard Kuklinski whose exploits Anthony Bruno wrote so brilliantly in THE ICE MAN (Dell, 1994).

Today Kuklinski now stands accused of the 1980 shotgun slaying of NYPD Officer Peter Calabro. In 1999 a reviewer here was critical of THE ICE MAN because author Bruno wrote about "the undercover agents who sought to bring [Kuklinski] down because the cops are always the stereotypicals. Big Yawn!"

The lives of police officers may be a big yawn to that person, but hopefully not to the majority. I applaud Anthony Bruno for recognizing & recounting just how much of themselves police officers put on the line to bring the likes of Kuklinski to justice... It is as fine a read today as it was 9 years ago. Like a fine wine, maybe even better.

I have been a faithful consumer of Lonely Planet products for the last five years. However, this collection does little more than offer superficial information on every country in Central Europe. If you want to go anywhere besides the capitals and most well-known tourist "traps", forget it. I was particularly dissapointed with the book's treatment of Germany and Switzerland. Very vague, very minimal. If you want to visit any of the countries in Central Europe, buy the Lonely Planet Guide to that country or look for a different publisher. Sorry guys, this one doesn't go in my travel bag.

This book is fantastic. I was amazed at how thorough a book could be. These authors also have a great sense of humor. Lonely is an oxymoron. This book is very comforting. I highly recommend this book.

This textbook is a mess! Certain sections such as those that deal with classical transmission genetics are reasonably good. On the other hand, those sections that deal with recombinant DNA/genomic technology and the molecular basis of cancer are very weak. The writing in these sections is convoluted, and the level of coverage fluctuates wildly between oversimplification and mind-numbing detail. The book does not seem to have a clear target audience in mind, and the authors appear to have not spoken with each other during the writing. Considering the relative strengths of their earlier text, "Introduction to Genetic Analysis," this new effort is all the more disappointing.

Genetics has traditionally been taught with the topics in historical order, starting with Mendel and only later reaching molecular genetics. However, it is much more logical to explain Mendelian genetics in the context of molecular genetics. (No other science abandons a logical building-up of concepts in return for historical chronology!) Griffiths and colleagues are the first to write a text with this preferable and long-overdue approach. Their overall organization is the best that I've seen. While many of the chapters are very well written, there are some parts of the book that are substandard and hopelessly jumbled, such as the chapter on mutational mechanisms and DNA repair. As this is a first edition, I am optimistic that these problems will be ironed out in the second edition. Another criticism is that the figures are adequate but not outstanding; the artists should take lessons from their colleagues who worked on Genetics: From Genes to Genomes by Hartwell and colleagues. Despite its drawbacks, I prefer this text to others that are available.

I'm very impressed with the excercises in the end of every chapter. The excercises are fun and not too difficult.
The material is very well illustrated. Again, good work .

This is a very well written book that covers Nixon's birth through the aftermath of Watergate. My interest in this book bloomed when I watched Anthony Summers on Face the Nation on the 30th anniversary of Watergate. He even shared the spotlight with John Dean to the somewhat disgust of the author if body language means anything.

Summers has done quite a bit of research and links quite well the major partners in Nixon's campaigns and in addition the men that eventually help run the country. There is so much about Nixon's personal flaws and self gain obsession there is a question of balance. On the one hand I am amazed at the amount of detail that links Nixon to win at all costs campaign men, illegal money contributions even from mobsters, a long association with Howard Hughes, money laundering through Beebe Rebozo's bank, Swiss bank accounts, Nixon's plan to screw Johnson's peace initiative to win the election, his over compulsion with dirty tricks. It's hard to conclude otherwise that Nixon was a bad man more caught up with his own style of government. However, at times when the author goes back to Nixon's HS days its almost seems impossible for anyone retrospectively to say anything nice about Nixon other than his earnest desire to succeed. You almost expect someone to say "I remember Nixon when he was in diapers, even my dog didn't like him!" A question to be explored upon a broader canvas is how bad was Nixon compared to other politicians. Was illegal fund raising rampant and typical of the candidates in that era? Is it still happening today? After all, Nixon even on tape seems to say the other guys are doing it too. And the author concludes that Robert Kennedy was bugging Nixon while he served as his brother's Attorney General which Nixon discovers.
During the presidency, Nixon finds out the Joint Chief are spying on Kissinger (The Radford Affair).

Besides the illegal contributions, the most devastating part of the book deals with not so much Nixon's development of the plumbers but in his post Watergate obsession to deal with Watergate instead of running the country. Summers does a great job of accounting of Nixon's whereabouts in the final 18 months of his presidency where according to the logs, Nixon spends a great deal of time on the California coast or Florida with Beebe. In addition, the critical tapes show Nixon totally focused on Watergate In addition, Summers states quite emphatically that Nixon without his secret psychotherapist was unstable due to the use of Dilantin, alcohol and sleeping pills. The latter part almost sounds like Elvis' final hours as Nixon is portrayed as a mentally compromised man who could no longer govern. It's a pretty frightening portrayal and if the Nixon Summers describes is accurate, then Al Haig and Henry Kissinger did a disservice to the country in not working to ease Nixon out of power. In Summers' portrayal, the final period of Nixon's presidency almost reminds me of the movie "Dave" where the Chief of Staff tries to take over the government by not disclosing that the president had a stroke. While reading these parts of the book I was hoping that this was overstated because if not, Nixon was not lucid over the final 12 months of his presidency.

A book worth reading but a little more balance on how Nixon compared to his political adversaries would have been helpful, gosh Tom Dewey supported Nixon and he appeared to have similar fund raising issues. And didn't Nixon do more than just break down the cold war barriers a bit with Russia and China? Did he have any interest in domestic issues at all?

Now if Summers would do a book on John Dean. Dean acts extra clean since he bailed out first. Is a hit man any nicer because he cut a deal?

Anthony Summers setting of his decision to spend five plus years working the details of the life of Nixon is important. Along with Norman Mailer, he was pissed off at the obits cranked out in 1994 on Nixon's death, Obits written in the spirit of the cover-up. Perhaps the best way to frame this book is an obit crafted by an enemy list wanna-be. As yet another citizen still distressed at being left off that famous list -- I think Summers got Richard M. Nixon right on.

"Arrogance" is a full biography crafted around a collection of psychological insights into the subject -- it is a tale of one soul's journey through 20th century American Politics -- a tale of predictable disasters. It is so much more than Watergate, though readers knowledgable of Watergate detail will find much here that is new, and demands integration into one's Watergate fact file. But since Nixon materials are scheduled to be opened by various archives well into the second quarter of the 21st century, we probably will need more Summers-like books, books that synthesize new materials either as additions or corrections into the detailed analysis of Nixon.

But in year 2000 Summers adds it up as follows: Nixon as a kid learned telling the truth frequently led to a whipping, telling lies avoided that possibility. He learned to stuff his emotions so deep, they never really matured. He came to doubt his parents evangelical Quaker piety -- but he never explored so as to replace it with a mature value and belief system. He was ripe to be caught by that place where the American Mafia and American Business intersect, and need presentable political actors. In 1946 they needed a vet, good education, someone with a velvet fist to bust the labor movement, someone who would serve interests so long as he was well paid, (under the table mind you). Nixon got and took the offer -- and Summers details the whole long list of transactions that salt Nixon's rise...all the way to the post resignation annual visits to his secret Swiss Bank Accounts.

Much has been made in the press of the possible physical abuse of Pat Nixon at her husband's hand -- the sources are interesting, but not convicting. Nonetheless, the narrative is filled with instances of psychological abuse, a profound story of attachment disorder. One wonders why no one speculated about this during the long Nixon public career?

Summers provides the basis for raising the question needing debate -- how was it that a political party selected this flawed person for leadership? Just reading through the sources one understands Nixon's intimates knew something of the truth -- but they nominated him twice for Vice President, and three times for President -- we need to comprehend why. His own psychologist seemed to know in 1951 that he could not handle stress, but professional ethics of course kept him from speaking out. His profound problems with truth and trust were apparent to his political allies -- but they turned away from the responsibility to act. Summers does not ask these questions, but readers ought to consider them.

I have always been struck by the particular choice of words "I am not a crook" that Nixon used to disclaim his role in Watergate. After all, if Watergate was a politically motivated crime, his words should have reflected the constitutional issues involved--something to the effect that "I am not a self-serving traitor." To me, being a crook connotes theft, racketeering, extortion, and other crimes involving money and other property. Among many other virtues, Mr. Summers and Ms. Swan have made it clear that from the beginning of his career, Nixon was in fact on the take, and his subsequent political life was spent substantially on covering up his earlier crimes. What a tangled web indeed! No wonder he cracked under the strain.

As in his previous book about "Jaye" Edgar Hoover--pun intended for fans of "The Crying Game"--Summers has used a sensational but semi-corroborated allegation as a publicity hook for an otherwise exhaustively researched and important book. But if this is what it takes to get people to read about such dangerous men--Hoover with rentboys at the Plaza Hotel, or Nixon beating his wife--then more power to the authors. Regardless, these allegations are consistent with everything else we read about in the books. Unfortunately in the case of Nixon, it seems as though it was the evil that was interred with his bones, not the good. Thanks to Summers and Swan for exhuming it.

As a die hard Redskins fan, I was very sorry to see this excellent concept so badly muffed. The idea behind this book is to cash in on the Washington Post vault, providing great photos and articles combined with new pieces by long-time Skins beat reporters to tie it all together. Sadly, whoever edited and proofread this thing reeeally dropped the ball. Sentences at the bottom of the page are repeated at the top of the next, photographs are mislabeled, pieces of sentences are missing, words are chopped off in the middle. Probably still of some value for the die hard Skins fan, but a real black eye for the Washington Post. If their newspaper were produced as shoddily, Richard Nixon would have finished his second term.

Yes, there are some typos and such in the early chapters but the book isn't as lousy as described in the 2-star review. Most of the problems are hyphen-ated words that are not at the end of a page or line. It is like the typeset was changed but the book was not reproofed.

Still, there is a lot of good information in the book. I think it covers items that Loverro's book (very good as well) ignored or glossed over-- how Gibbs wanted to sign and trade Riggo and how Joe Jacoby ended up sticking around in that first camp. The Times summary makes it sound like Gibbs and Beathard were geniuses building a team. This book shows that they were also lucky geniuses. If you are a Skins fan, you should own this book.

I see there is also a newer edition out with the Synder years (ugh).

Mostly short quips about news items which indicate that our society is doomed, or at least is several bricks shy of a load. The 101 puzzling statistics, interesting facts, and irrational actions are listed after a cutesy headline incorporating the word "doom." A quick and easy read which should appeal most to those over 20.

if you have ben reading my other reviews youcan tell Ilike books on autistic kids. This one is very good. ihte boy in the story actually has a cerbal allergie to milk. you can really the moms joy when here son iss better. to bad this book is out of print,

The quality of the speakers in this collection varied. Some, like those by Fred Friendly and Tom Brokaw, were interesting and thought-provoking but the decline in talent from lecture to lecture was obvious - the last one was by conservative ideologue and media mogul Rupert Murdoch, defending sleeze (sp?) on TV. The editors also did a poor job - all they had to do was transcribe some speeches. The fact that they wound up with spelling and grammatical errors just goes to show how quickly this work was thrown together. My advice - read the offerings by Wicker, Chancellor, Friendly and Brokaw and skip the rest.

Did Josh Sims do this book?
There are tons of other designers you might want their oppinion on rock n roll instead of all american tommy. He hasn't designed for Rockers in my eyes..

dear readers and viewers
just a quick note to say that I had nothing to do with this Hilfiger product. Mine ('Rock fashion') is a different book.
I like to get the record straight....
Happy reading
Josh Sims

dear readers and reviewers
just a quick note to say that this Hilfiger product is nothing to do with me! Mine ('Rock Fashion') is a different book altogether. I like to get the record straight...
Happy reading.
josh sims

Bruno Richard Hauptmann was the kidnapper and murderer of Charles Lindbergh, Jr. No speculative or fictionalized evidence by Anthony Scaduto or anyone else can change that unalterable fact.

I would give this book zero stars except that Amazon won't let me. What a waste of paper.

this was a good book. i'd like to get that out before hand. i think that in real life, the actual event was more mysterious and intriging. while i'm not rating a movie, i think that an event that captured an entire nation's attention and sombody accused of killing "the eaglet" that everybody hated, could have used a better book. i would suggest reading about the "Lindbergh Kidnapping" before you read this book, so you don't get lost.