I really enjoyed reading this book. It is very well-written and thought provoking. Like Armstrong and Sheard's first book, In His Grip, the illustrations in Playing the Game are beautiful.

Without a doubt, Schmalleger's "Trial of the Century: People of the State of California vs. Orenthal James Simpson" is the best book ever written about this trial. Two essential points must be made.

First, the intended audience of this monograph is criminal justice students. Schmalleger thought that students could learn court and legal concepts by employing the Simpson trial. This is a brilliant strategy. For example, students will learn and will not forget concepts such as "evidence," "direct evidence" and "circumstantial evidence."

Second, when one is finished reading this book, one will understand why OJ was found not guilty. The reason is simple, but not obvious. Much of the book includes court transcripts. We actually read the exact words of the lawyers and the judge. This is the real eye-opener. OJ did NOT win because of the "race card." He won because his lawyers (F. Lee Bailey, Johnnie Cochran, Robert Shapiro, Alan Derchowitz, Carl Douglas, Peter Neufeld, Barry Scheck, and Gerald Uelmen) were much more competent than the prosecutors (Gill Garcetti, Marcia Clark, Christopher Darden, and Hank Goldberg).

Reading the transcript is much better than hearing the words. With the written word, the reader has an opportunity to analyze the sentence structure and understand the power of the words being used. Simply stated the defense were better orators than the prosecutors. The defense had command of the English language and the prosecutors did not.

My conclusion from reading this book: If OJ had an all white OBJECTIVE jury, he would have been acquitted. It was not the evidence; it was the manner in which the evidence was presented. Evidence was presented within the context of the spoken word and the prosecutors -- particularly Christopher Darden and Marcia Clark -- were seriously lacking.

There are many other books written about the OJ Trial. These include "Without a Doubt" by Marcia Clark and "In Contempt" by Christopher Darden. The central theme of these publications is "blaming." Neither Clark nor Darden would take responsibility for their incompetence as prosecutors.

Another book by Vincent Bugliosi is entitled "Outrage: The Five Reasons Why O.J. Simpson Got Away With Murder." Bugliosi also includes transcript pieces, but interjects his opinion. Schmalleger has an opinion but does NOT share it with the reader. He forces the reader to come to his or her own conclusion: OJ didn't win, Clark and Darden lost.

How Firms Succeed transforms the poetry of architecture into the prose of practical management advice. This book offers solutions to the questions and problems that distract firms from their quest to provide excellent design. It should rapidly become an indispensable part of every architect's working library.

How Firms Succeed should be on every Design Firm's must read list. It is the closest thing to a how-to manual in running a design firm. Anyone who follows the principles of the text will reap the rewards as their business grows.

Too many design professionals think that design excellence and financial acumen are mutually exclusive. Thanks to the authors of How Firms Succeed for putting this myth to rest. This book addresses the issues that, if practiced, will allow for both. One can only imagine the impact of a firm that provides best-of-class design and its impact on our communities.

Being a Civil War buff, I just received a copy of the old 2-volume edition of this book as a birthday present. It turned out to be one of the better presents I have received. Grant begins by stating that he will NOT present all the details of each campaign and battle. He keeps this promise. Rather, the book is a general overview of his background, youth, and military career from Mexico through the Civil War. I expected some self-aggrandizement, but was (pleasantly)surprised by Grant's frankness and obvious sincerity. He tells things as he experienced them, with no flourishes. When he was wrong, he says so. When credit belongs to someone else, he also says so. It is a straight-forward story by an obviously straight-forward man. Knowing that he was soon to die, Grant wrote a remarkably honest piece - especially compared to the works of some of his contemporaries. When I finished reading the book, I don't believe that I knew that much more about the war itself. Rather, my strongest impression was of Grant's character; that I had, in a sense, met the man. It is a book NOT be to missed.

That U.S. Grant is telling one of history's great tragic and glorious stories as the key actor would make this book a fine piece in its own right. He has a gift for story telling that renders his Personal Memoirs compelling and engrossing. One of the best books I have read. It is remarkable from several levels. First, it is undeniably great history. The story of our Civil War is moving enough to leave a tremendous impression upon the reader in Grant's hands. Second, this book is a great study in management. Grant succeeded where scores failed at similar command levels throughout the Civil War. He did due to his: knowledge and focus on his mission; his ability to conceive plans that served his mission; his ability to have alternatives that stayed the course; his ability to learn from mistakes and experience; his calm in the face of stress and chaos; his decisiveness and his willingness to take reasonable risks.

This book surprised me by being an excellent management study. The lessons which are easy to take away from the book are aplicable to anyone who is faced with mission definition and achievement. It should be must reading in MBA programs.

Grant's lack of ego is surprising when compared to other Civil War figures and high achievers who have reflected on their lives and actions. By not only focusing on things that went right for Grant, the book has a tremendous credibility borne of real life trial and error, frustration, lessons learned and later employed.

A great book.

Grant's memoirs are a must-read for any serious student of the Civil War. While praise is heaped upon Confederate generals such as Lee and Jackson, Grant's legacy has always been a little more uncertain. His reputation has been associated with allegations of drunkenness, and with an apparent unflinching ability to send men to their slaughter which this book helps to dispel.

Lincoln loved Grant, as he was the first Union commander who seemed willing to fight it out with Lee's army, and who enjoyed any consistent success. When one considers Grant's predecessors at the helm of the Union army, one can understand Lincoln's enthusiasm. You had McClellan, who never read an exaggerated report of the enemy size he didn't believe; "Fighting Joe Hooker", flanked and embarrassed at Chancellorsville; Burnside, who foolishly sent wave after wave of Union soldiers across the Rappahanock to attack an impregnable stone wall at Fredericksburg; and Pope, who was soundly beaten at Manassas. Meanwhile, Grant caught Abe's attention with his successful siege of Vicksburg in the summer of 1863, as Meade was beating Lee at Gettysburg.

Reading Grant's Memoirs is a fascinating experience, as the war, at least that part of it involving Grant, comes to life in the hands of a thoughtful commentator. Grant was obviously there, and he shares informative communications with his inferior officers (such as Sherman) and with the President. Grant sent many men to their doom to be sure, (the Wilderness campaign comes to mind as being especially bloody and ineffective), but overall you get the sense that Grant was respected by his men, who were happy to be marching forward and not backwards after a battle. He restored a sense of pride and accomplishment that was sorely lacking in the Union rank and file. He gave cogent reasons in his memoirs for the actions undertaken, sometimes admitting mistakes in humble fashion, and sometimes explaining why a siege would accomplish the same overall goal without unnecessary bloodshed.

My only regret is that Grant didn't live long enough to write a companion memoir about his presidency, which was clearly outside the scope of this book. Readers who have gotten this far in the Amazon review process are no doubt aware that a broke Grant, stricken with painful throat cancer, wrote out his Memoirs of the Civil War right up until the end of his life to provide financially for his family, finishing the book days before he died. We should all be grateful that he was able to preserve these pages for prosperity, they are truly a model of military memoirs that I consider an extremely rewarding reading experience. When one considers the circumstances in which Grant composed this work, the end result is nothing short of miraculous.

An excellent analysis covering the entire scope of Grant's tactical operations. However, this book reaches too far. Like the title, the author's military assertions and their subsequent impact on the Union's conduct of the war are a little too grandiose. Grant did not win the war on July 4, 1863. It would drag on for two more years. But just maybe Lincoln did.

Grant's amazing victory was as much politically as tactically driven. From the point of view of Grant's career, he had to win, had to take unorthodox chances, because he was as close to being dead meat as any Union general ever came. For months and months he was bogged down before Vicksburg. We know Lincoln was so dissatisfied with Grant that he sent Charles Dana to Vicksburg as the President's special envoy to see what was really going on.

General Banks, a Lincoln political appointee and very close friend, was driving north from Baton Rouge toward Port Gibson and Vicksburg. Banks stalled and Grant was ordered by Halleck (via Lincoln??) to assist Banks. Grant disobeyed this command from the then General in Chief of all Federal armies and went his own way. WOW! Big decision. What a way to make friends when you are under the looking glass.

Last, placed within Grant's command structure is another Lincoln political appointee and friend, General McClernand, who Grant subsequently relieves prior to Vicksburg's capitulation. Is he thumbing he nose?

At Vicksburg we see Grant's first inclination to tactically detach himself from direct supply and communication lines. But what caused it? Was it Pemberton's chauvinistic defense of Vicksburg and Grant's straight forward desire to defeat his foe? Or was it the internal pressure within the Union army and Grant's desire to save his career that forced Grant to do very, very differently from then current military principals, causing him to develop this amazingly different set of operational plans he would resort to again and again during the remainder of the war?

Last, from the Confederate side there is Jeff Davis' incredible stupidity. Did Jeff Davis hang Joe Johnston out to dry? And lets not forget Pemberton's direct disobedience to his theater commander's, Joe Johnston's order: Save the army, abandon Vicksburg. Why did Jeff Davis never censure Pemberton not only for the loss of Vicksburg, strategically and psychologically important to the South as it was, but also the loss of an entire army, complete with thousands of men and irreplaceable stores, arms and ammunition? And why does Davis again relieve Johnston from command, not reinstating him until the final hours of the war?

Seen simply from the viewpoint of the Union high command, i.e., a traitor in his midst (McClernand), a presidential spy at headquarters (Dana), an unwillingness to unite forces with a fellow field commander (Banks) and the disobedience of his direct superior's orders (Halleck's), Grant should be thankful for Lincoln's reaffirmed evaluation of him: "I cannot spare this man; he fights". Good for you, Charles Dana.

Grant's military victory at Vicksburg IS amazing and this book is as good an account of it as there is. But the author fails to live up to his title's claim. Grant's political coup (Lincoln's willing recognition of his ability despite his incredible disobedience and non cooperation with Lincoln favorites) is even more incredulous than his military one. Had not Meade just beaten Lee at Gettysbury on the very same day that Vicksburg fell? Which would have been of more immediate importance: a captured Confederate army on the Mississippi River or a victorious Confederate army next door to Washington? If Lee had won at Gettysburg, Vicksburg would have been what it will always be, a spectacular feat of arms. But Union army and Northern political concerns aside, maybe, just maybe, Jeff Davis and Robert E. Lee lost the war that fateful day when they made the conscious decision to risk swapping Vicksburg for Washington and lost their gamble on both counts.

The most important item to come from the Vicksburg conflict was not Grant's victory as much as it was Lincoln's recognition of Grant as his next General in Chief. And in that vein it was not Grant's victory at Vicksburg but Lincoln's subsequent promotion of Grant over Meade that won the war.

An excellent analysis covering the entire scope of Grant's Vickburg's operations.

But like the title, a little too grandoise in its assertions. Grant's amazing victory was as much politically as tactically driven. Here we see Grant's first indclination to detach himself from direct supply and communication lines. But what caused it? Was it Pemberton's chauvenistic defense of Vicksburg (and Grant's straight forward desire to defeat his foe) or was it the internal pressure within the Union army (forcing Grant to do very, very differently from then current military principals)that caused him to develop this amazingly different set of operational plans he would resort to again and again during the remainder of the War?

Prior to this victory, Grant, as a general, was probably as much at risk to continuing his command as any time subsequent in his military career. He had horrifically bogged down at Vicksburg. General Banks, Lincoln political appointee and close friend of Lincoln's, is driving North from Baton Rouge. He is stalled outside Port Gibson and Grant is ordered by Hallack (via Lincoln??)to assist him. Grant disobeys this command from the then General in Chief of all Federal armies and goes his own way. WOW! Big decision.

Also, within his command structure is another Lincoln political appointee, General McClernand, who Grant relieves prior to Vickburg's capitulation.

Last, there is Jeff Davis' incredible stupidity (did he hang Joe Johnston out to dry)and Pemberton's direct disobedience to his theater commander's, Joe Johnston's order; save the army, abandon Vicksburg. Why did Jeff Davis never censure Pemberton not only for the loss of Vicksburg, strategically and psycologically important to the South as it was, but also an entire army, complete with thousands of men, stores, arms and ammunition? And why does Davis again relieve Johnston from command, not reinstating him until the final hours of the war?

Seen simply from the viewpoint of the Union high command,i.e., a traitor in his midst, McClernand, an unwillingness to unite forces with a fellow field commander, Banks, and the disobedience of his direct superior's orders, Halleck's,he should be thankful for Linclon's non military, non political eveluation of him: "I cannot spare this man; he fights".

Grant's military victory at Vicksburg is amazing. But his political victory (Lincoln's willing recognition of his ability despite his incredible disobedience)is even more incredulous.

Arnold's book is a good solid history of the Vicksburg Campaign. His descriptions of the battles and the strategic and tactical issues facing Grant and the Confederacy gives one an understanding of what problems faced the parties and how they were resolved. His description of the battle of Champion Hill is the best part of the book, as one can feel the bravery of the soldiers involved.

The books limitation is Arnold's almost infatuation with Grant and the need to make Vicksburg the pivotal battle of the war. While the strategy that Grant utilized was daring and unorthodox that does not substantiate the comparison with Napoleon. There is nothing in the campaign that demonstrates that Grant's tactics were Napoleonic in nature.

Whether Vicksburg was the pivotal battle of the civil was may be true. However, Arnold did not make the case that it was. A Union loss at Gettysburg surley would have had a dramatic impact on the Unions will to continue the war. While the issue of which battle was more important was not important to the Vicksburg story, once the issue was raised Arnold should have at least spent more than a moment discussing Gettysburg.

As a story about the Vicksburg Campaign, the book excells.

As a huge fan of James Bond in all his various incarnations, I was interested to find a copy of this book the other day in a sale and purchased a copy. My doubts about its' value however began almost immediately, after all how serious can you take a claim that a book is the definitive account of a subject when the authors start by rubbishing their competitors. For the record there are a number of excellent "glossy" style books with flash pictures that are just as good, if not better reference books than this one. Also the number of different accounts of the James Bond phenomenon make it impossible for anyone to claim their version of events is right and everyone else is wrong. Top that off with the fact that the authors here give new meaning to the word "nitpicking", but ironically while they mention some totally pointless trivia connected with various stories and movies, they actually managed to miss a number of other more important details. At the end of the day this is a comprehensive, though at times patronising, account of the world's greatest secret agent. But don't be fooled, there are better books around if you want, and don't be surprised if "M" puts out a 'terminate with extreme prejudice' order on these two authors !!!

This was a quick pick at an airport one day and I was amazed at all the goodies inside. If you've ever wanted to know every language that Bond ever spoke, what gadget or gizmo he used in which movie, or all the aliases he's ever used, this is the book for you. "The Bond Files" is a great book with all kinds of facts, trivia, and information for each story, comic, and movie. The authors even review the opening title sequences and have a nice synopsis of each movie. They don't miss much with this book.

One of the best books to have on James Bond.

Just what makes him tick? Read and find out!

I bought this book last year and used it as our family toured around the midwest, visiting minor league parks on our way to big league parks. We arrived at a single A game in Iowa one day, an hour before game time, to find the park deserted. After calling the office number listed in the book, we were informed that the game that day had been a day game and we had missed it. It was listed in the book as a night game, but apparently every other thursday is a day game or something goofy like that. When you find a mistake like that, your faith in the accuracy of the rest of the book is pretty damaged. I am not buying it this year, but relying on the Internet for schedule information before I hit the road.

how do I edit my review? In case this actually gets posted....please someone tell me how to edit these things once they are posted. Thanks.....and by the way...this book is really good and useful. (Refer to my actual review of this and the 2000 edition.)

This book is a very good source of info on ALL of pro baseball. (Please refer to my review of the 2000 edition of this book.) I am mentioned in this book, as I was with the front office of the Ft. Myers Miracle. I would , however, like to point out some errors/ommisions: I should be listed as "Account Executive" and "Radio Producer". Also, in the 2000 edition, Mark Weaver should be listed as "Coordinator of Felony Plagiarism". This book is a good deal at this price, though, so buy it from Amazon.com, while supplies last. If you are a true baseball fan, this is a book that will not disapoint.

I own three different revisions of this book. All are very useful for amateur rock hounds. My sons and I have visited about a dozen of the listed sites and all have produced nice specimens.

I didn't follow much of the trial, basically because I didn't care. The tragedy in my mind is that so many of us wasted so many hours following the most boring trial ever.

The man is guilty! PERIOD! Why?

Because on one page of American Tragedy, one member of the defense team wonders how Ronald Goldman's blood was found in OJ's bronco...yet the defense got that suppressed.

There it is ladies and gentleman: guilty as sin. That is one coincidence too many and I don't buy this conspiracy nonsense for a second.

Even if you say Schiller was on OJ's side, including that little tidbit is enough to show some balance.

Another tragedy is that the jury represented 12 of the 24 stupidest Americans ever to have paid taxes. (The other twelve being the Rodney King jurors.)

They confused DNA with Blood Types? C'mon, these morons would have screwed up paint-by-numbers.

I don't understand the reader comments who say this is a pro-OJ book.
This book, by the co-author of OJ's "I Want to Tell You," is a LENGTHY almost-700-page detailed version of how OJ's defense team strategized, fought with each other, and raised reasonable doubt with the jury. This book provides one of the best presentations of the evidence FOR OJ -- what EXACTLY was unreliable about the prosecution's evidence -- and it's not just speculation! The part after page 250 (hardback version) is the more worthwhile than the first exhaustive account of OJ's activities after the murders, before his arrest.
That said, a lot of the book is consumed with repetitive themes. There's a lot more trees than forest; you'll need an overall understanding of the case to "get" this verbose book. And some of the easily-available trees are missing from the book -- it's largely devoid of what the prosecution argued.
Toobin's book is still the best book.
This book is so objective it fails to provide a conclusion. What IS the so-called "American Tragedy" ?? Is it the murders themselves? (Not likely -- there are many murders in the country.) Is it that a guilty man got off? Or that an innocent man was persecuted? The author declines to say. The author does repeatedly bring forth OJ's talent for self-delusion about OJ's OTHER acts toward Nicole, and OJ's skill at deflecting objective inquiries -- leaving open the possibility that OJ actually committed the murders, but OJ himself believes he didn't. OJ was telling his children that he wasn't under arrest, but helping the police find the real killer. As said in other books, it IS possible to "frame a guilty man."

Schiller provides a useful look into the trial which captivated the nation and this reviewer. I was so interested in watching our judicial system handle such a case of national interest. My reaction after seeing all of this was twofold: if a juror, I would support the decision of acquittal, due simply to the fact that the prosecution did not put forward a case that proved beyond reasonable doubt; two, I like all suspect O.J. put the facts of the case as presented did not support this. I continue to be disturbed that many fellow citizens cannot clearly make this distinguishment. Our whole legal system is built on this, innocent "until" proven guilty.

What one thinks is irrelevant. What is relevant is allowable evidence in the court. Schiller gets behind scenes and gives much background info for consideration. Especially does he provide picture of defense and prosecuter teams. Fascinating stuff!

Schiller helps clear some of the smoke away. Cloud of suscpicion still pervades however, and might never be dispersed. Great read as all of Schiller's.

Simpson's attributes authorship of a Theodore Roosevelt quote to John F. Kennedy.

Theodore Roosevely wrote "History as Literature" in 1913. In this work he wrote the famous quote:
'It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, and comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.'

Simpson's wrongly attributes the quote to Kennedy.

This book has many, if not all of the most famous quotes of today. The book is very well organized and meticulous in its details. Fr. Simpson has obvously spent many long hours organizing and researching. The final product is really fantastic!! You must buy this book!

Most books of quotations tend to emphasize the classics, so it is nice to see one concentrate on the wise, witty, wonderful, and just plain odd things being said today. It contains "approximately 11,300 quotations with special emphasis on the years since 1988", by well-known and lesser known people. It is the sort of book you can open for a moment, and close an hour later. I found it fascinating.

The book is divided into three overarching categories: the World, Humankind, and Communication and the Arts. These are further broken down into more specific categories, such as Law, Education, Family Life, Humor, Art, Films, and Literature--and many others. Most of these are then further broken down. For instance, Literature consists of Writers and Editors, Poets, and Critics.

Some of the authors represented are Bill Clinton, Prince Charles, Oprah Winfrey, Robert Frost, John D. Rockefeller, Grace Hopper, Warren Bennis, and many, many others. As you can see, they are an eclectic bunch.

The quotes themselves may be interesting in their own right, or appropriate to a particular occasion, or the original words of something that has moved into our modern ways of thought. Like any book of quotations, the reader always wonders why some things were included, and others left out, but that is part of the fun of reading quote books.

There are three extensive indexes: Source (i.e. Author), Subjects, and Keyword. Attributions are always given for each quote.