error Books

This is a wonderful book documenting some of the most significant failures of Justice in the 20th century. The stories presented within are both enthralling and heartbreaking. I highly recommend this book.

Another reviewer accused this book's authors of "intellectual dishonesty" for including crimes that did not result in a death sentence. However, this reviewer erroneously stated that only crimes that eventually result in the death penalty are capital crimes. This is not true. A capital crime is an crime that carries with it the _potential_ for recieving a death sentence - not just the crimes that actually do recieve such a sentence.

The authors also stated in the introduction that they would be including crimes which, at the time they were committed, constituted a capital offense, but no longer are considered death penalty-eligible (like rape).

The only "intellectual dishonesty" present is that of certain reviewers who make false statements and tarnish the reputations of well-respected researchers.

I would have ranked this book higher if it wasn't intellectually dishonest. Personally, I oppose the death penalty, but I don't appreciate deceptive reasoning in defense of my beliefs.

The book's subtitle, its authors, many reviewers, as well as countless people who rely upon the authors' research to attack the death penalty, all state that the 400+ supposedly innocent people were all convicted of capital crimes. That implies that they were all sentenced to death, as that is what a "capital crime" is. That claim, which the authors themselves fully admit in their Introduction, is flat out false. As the authors themselves acknowledge, MOST of the 400+ cases referred to were cases where the defendant was not in fact sentenced to death. That, ipso facto, means that they were not found guilty of capital crimes. Many were found guilty of non-capital homicides, such as manslaughter and 2nd degree homicide, and were sentenced to terms significantly less than even life (sometimes as little as a few years). The authors also admit to include convictions for non-capital rapes, on the grounds that they COULD have been tried as such, but in fact weren't. They also admit to including convictions in jurisdictions were there wasn't any death penalty available at all!

Their justification for all this? Their argument is that it is legitimate for them to treat all these cases as "capital" because (they claim) most people believe that all criminal homicides are capital cases, even though that in fact is false. In other words, they are claiming that they are justified in relying on a false premise in their argument against the death penalty (these guys are anti-DP activists, and thus are not unbiased researchers) on the grounds that most people don't know it's false, even though they do. Such conscious exploitation of public ignorance on a legal issue is bald-faced intellectual dishonesty.

Otherwise, the book includes compelling stories of injustice in the criminal justice system. Their case would have been more compelling if, in their zeal to attack the death penalty, they were more honest about the matter.

I agree with the first reviewer. A blatant case of intellectual dishonesty. Michael Radelet is one of the worst researchers on capital punishment. I don't know how the guy got his tenure. Don't buy it!!

Just some definitional clarification in response to comments made about the "intellectual dishonesty" of the authors:

CAPITAL OFFENSE - a crime for which the death penalty may be imposed. Black's Law Dictionary, 7th Ed. 1999.

Black's is the legal system's most trusted authority on legal terminology, and while it is perhaps unfair and potentially misleading for the authors to have exploited a reader's possible misunderstanding of the nature of capital sentencing and prosecutorial dealmaking, the authors are correct in their usage of the term.

In our system of justice the worst case scenario is to be convicted of capitol crime and sentenced to death. Even worse than that is that fact you are innocent of the crime. This book exposes some serious miscarriages of the system.

The authors, in great detail explain how over 400 Americans were wrongly incarcerated for crimes of which they did not commit. The book is a true insight into the world of our legal system.

With great attention to the facts, you have a first hand look at people on death row. I was impressed and captured by how well the book tells the stories. I was able to finish the reading in just over 6 hours.

If your fascinated by law, have a hobby with law or just want to spend some time with a real good book, here's your chance. An excellent read from start to finish. You won't be able to put it down.

I recieved the book in a timely manner and the book was in better shape than I had expected. Good job. Thank You.
Sandy

I have never received this item yet even though it was ordered 7/23/07,it is not here yet.

I didn't care for this book for a few reasons. First, this really isn't a price book. Sure it gives very general prices but nothing really pinned down. Second, this book is very hard to just look up a specific coin. The book is not very well aranged. This would be a good book if you just wanted to know the different varieties and how they were made. So if that's what you want then that's what you will get. As far as a price guide forget it doesn't tell me much about the value of a coin, especially with no specific year of coin or denomination.

If you are into error coins big time, this book is for you. The book has hundreds of different errors, saying how they were made and a general price. It is like a encyclepedia: many different general entries, not going to specific on any one type of error. If you are a begginner to numismatics I would not reccommend this. Instead you should go for something like the Redbook. However, if error coins are your expertise, this is a must buy.

The review below lodges some valid and important complaints. To wit, this book really is not a price guide as such as the 'guidance' is so broad as to be meaningless. Also, it is quite difficult to look up specific varieties such as the one you may be holding in your grimy little paw, and it doesn't give enough up to date information on the populations of various errors. Having said that, it is one of those I believe any nonprofessional coin collector ... coin scout should have for the following reasons: Alan Herbert, the author does give examples of the broad panoply of mint errors that are out there, with description, level of rarity and, usually, a photgraph for visual reference. More importantly, the book includes a complete description of the rating system and all of the nomenclature surrounding the rating and identifying of various errors. This information alone makes this book worthy of purchase. There is other information here too, such as a simple, lucid and photographically enhanced description of the entire minting process that will definitely help you to get your head around the world of error coins. To be sure, this book is deeply flawed and on that basis should probably draw only three stars, but I've looked and there just isn't that much literature on error coins out there for the casual coin collector. So, if you want to fill out your knowledge of error coins but aren't a hardcore error hound, go ahead and get this book. You won't be sorry, I'm sure (possibly a little disappointed though).

OK, the writing can get a bit flippant, and there are lots of typos! Still, for a nifty exploration of some really seriously bad medical errors, this is a fine read! Starting out with the thalidimide babies of the early 1960's, some really creepy stuff, and the lives of some of these individuals laters,moving on to cosmetic surgery mishaps, cases of poorly written and misread perscriptions, operations on the wrong part of the body, the Dalkon Shield disaster, and very weird medical ideas over the ages, the short mistreatments related here are cause for concern, and may provide a little numbness as you plow through. So for someone near illiterate in medicine and pharmacy, this is a bizarre and sometime frightening book!

The grammar is not wrong,but is the way the English spell!.Has the first reviewer even thought of this or even aware of this?.....what curious arrogance to criticise the authors from a country that invented the language!...................

This book is definitely not the book to buy if you are looking for a credible source on medical mistakes. However, if accuracy is not a concern, it is an interesting book to read.

The book tells of countless blunders by early medical practitioners up to modern day doctors. I learned a lot of interesting about the history behind many of present medical practices. Some topics covered are medications, surgeries, and their side effects, fraudulent billing practices, negligent doctors, and unethical procedures and practices.

This book is extremely sensational. It is fast to make claims and statements that are not backed up by facts. The book offers no references or citations as to where to where the data and information was gathered. There are also hundreds of grammar errors and typos.

This book is a horribly inaccurate collection of stories. I found several mistakes well beyond just "typos". For example, the authors describe a normal sleep stage (Rapid eye movement sleep) as abnormal and causing "suffering" in patients. The case of Phineas Gage (p. 215) is also mistakenly described. The authors take advantage of the fact that most people have not taken a course in neuroanatomy or basic physiology to advance their agenda. I bought the book in the hope that it would be an important addition to my education, but was sorely disappointed. I now believe that any "fact" put forth by these authors should be taken with a grain of salt.

There is a real need for a book on "common errors in statistics," but this one does not do the job. It reads more like a mediocre statistics textbook.

It is very common, and even necessary, to make mistakes while performing modeling or statistical studies. Some of these are easily corrected when one has the knowledge or expertise to understand that a mistake has been made. These could be designated as "blunders" and are part of the everyday life of a statistician or modeler. Other mistakes though are more serious, in that the investigator fails to recognize them and believes that the techniques used are valid for the problem that is studied. In addition, one can frequently fall into the trap of believing that mathematical or computational techniques or algorithms, whether done by hand or with the use of software, are always reliable and therefore require no independent checks or scrutiny. When statistical studies or modeling is done in an area where there is no danger to human or animal life, errors only have the effect of diminishing the validity of the study (and possibly the career of the investigator). In areas such as medicine and civil engineering however, errors in statistical studies can have serious ramifications for human life and safety, and therefore it is crucial that investigators be aware of how they arise and how to avoid them.

This short book is very valuable in that it discusses many of the errors that can arise in statistical modeling and gives advice on how to avoid them in practice. It should be on the bookshelf of all practitioners, regardless of their accumulated years of experience or level of expertise. Sometimes it is difficult for modelers to admit that they have made mistakes, let alone admit that they need advice for performing tasks they may been doing for years. But it never hurts to acknowledge that certain practices, even if they are carved in stone, may not be applicable to certain situations, and this book gives examples of this that are drawn from real world experiences. The authors are careful not to patronize the reader, but they do not hesitate to point out some of the misadventures that have occurred in statistical modeling. Throughout the book they caution against a religious attitude about computer software and mathematical formalism, and give explicit examples of how unquestioned use of these can result in serious errors. This goes hand in hand with their belief, usually only implicitly expressed in the book, that time constraints (such as emergencies) and deadlines may restrict an optimal statistical analysis from being conducted, but that any analysis done using improper tools should not be christened as such by the statistician community. The length of the book of course prohibits an exhaustive analysis of statistical studies that have gone awry but the authors include references for the curious reader.

Good:

-This text is written in a friendly, accessible style.
-Issues covered are relevant and solutions offered are practical.
-Frequent reference is made to the technical literatre in support of arguments presented.
-Clear rules are articulated as to when one should consider using certain techniques.
-Material is fairly timely, including coverage of many recent advances in statistics.


Bad:

-By its nature, this book will involve the authors' opinions, with which we may not all agree. On the other hand, this is at least a good place to start the discussion.
-I wish the book were longer, giving the authors' the opportunity to cover more topics.

I have not seen the first edition. I have received from Amazon the 2nd edition. The authors are salient to errors in statistics but not the material in their own book. For example, Good 2005 is cited on p42 but does not appear in the References. Similarly Wald 1980 on p82. On p144 Hardin and Hilbe 2002 is cited but the only reference is Hardin and Hilbe 2003. On the other hand the authors have left many older references (eg on surveys, p43) stand without noting the new helpful material.

Instead I highly recommend Abelson (1995): Statistics as Principled Argument.

I fully agree witht the previous reviewer. In an attempt to make things look simple, the author forgets that the objective of a good technical and engineering book is not to be just a cookbook for your kitchen where there are no deep whys, but to make the reader actually understand what is going on under the hood. This book fails completely at this, assuming you can reach the end survyving the frustrations, you will not remember the rationale for any single step taken.
A much better choice if you really want to understand the subject are Blahut's and Todd Moon's books.

The book attempts to provide a practical perspective without getting into nitty-gritty details of the theory behind error correcting codes. This limits its usefulness of you wish to understand FEC codes and how they work. Worse, its practical treatment has gaps as well, and one is left without the understanding that's needed to fill in the gaps. I went to study the C program for BCH codes in the companion Web site as well: its represents a sparsely commented "point solution" for a very specific code of short word length and is based on sophisticated methods that, while no doubt highly efficient, are only very thinly treated in the book. This makes it very difficult to understand what the program is doing, let alone to generalize it to other flavors of the code. I have found Shu Lin's and Daniel Costello's book "Error Control Coding" to be much more useful.

This book is a great introduction to the topic of error correcting codes. It gives very simple examples to demonstrate the main concepts of coding and decoding for error correction. The part on iterative decoding needs more work. However, the exposition of Reed Solomon codes and their decoding is outstanding. I definitely recommend this book!

As a New Zealander I went into this book with some trepidation as I had grown up on a steady diet of how the British generals had sacrificed dominion troops with reckless abandon and as such names like Haig, Hunter-Weston and Hamilton live on in a kind of collective infamy in the New Zealand psyche.

It was when Denis Winter was exposed to the official Australian history of WWI (as a visiting university fellow) that as a historian Winter began to question the British version of events - what followed was a an excellent re-examination of Haig as a General, commander, writer and in a certain sense as a de facto politician.

The central theme of the book is that almost all the British cabinet minutes, personal memoirs, official histories, dispatches, unit histories and all similar material were sanitized prior to publication and in many instances post publication - which is where the most glaring contradictions' occur between the Australian and British histories. The primary reason for this incredibly broad literary conspiracy argues Winter is many fold - however the protection of personal reputations, especially those from the 'Old Army' with a view towards further political/military advancement seems the most prominent and believable.

The old maxim that generals are always preparing to fight the last war is shown to be abundantly clear in Winter's work. The 1909 Field Service Regulations come under close scrutiny and show that Haig and his fellow chateau generals had learnt nothing from instructive conflicts such as the 'Boer War' only a decade earlier.

Probably the most damning part was the deconstruction of the 'Haig Myth', which shows the Haig was nothing more than a well-connected, political schemer who never missed an opportunity to feather his own nest and exaggerate his own accomplishments; such as when he graduated the Sandhurst Academy supposedly, as the Haig Myth claims, at the top of his class, which if true means he would have been commissioned into a prestigious regiment such as the Life Guards...instead he was commissioned into the 7th Lancers (which is ranked low in order of prestige in the British Army!) This is but one small example of Haig's self-serving careerism.

The book covers in detail the battles of attrition between 1916 - 18. Winter shows how the 1909 Field Service Regulations were primarily guilty for having battalion after battalion of British and Dominion troops advance across no-man's land in regimented lines, only to be slaughtered in their thousands, leading to such tragic outcomes like 57,000 casualties on the first day of the Battle of the Somme (3rd Battle of Ypres). This chapter is followed by an examination of 1918 as a year of mobility, in which Haig is clearly shown to be inept in mastering the tenets of maneuver warfare, despite maintaining massive reserves of cavalry for the always expected breakthrough.

The next chapter, `Falsifying the Record' is the most important. It lays bare Haig's deception, with Winter arguing that the deception was intentional on Haig's part. Apparently, Haig kept two (and possibly three) diaries, each one having a different recollection of events. Winter then goes into exacting detail showing how the British official historian General James Edmonds did a masterful job of collating and cleaning up all documents relating to operational conduct, leading to the reinforcement of the `Haig Myth' as perpetuated by Haig and his sycophants.

This is a highly critical examination of Haig and the post-war myth that was built around him. The only detracting point in this work is how Winter plays a little loose with quoting casualty figures. There were several moments when I had to reread certain passages to make sure I had correctly comprehended the figures that Winter quoted. Further investigations showed that several times Winter is incorrect. Whether these errors are Winter's or a sub-editors is open to argument, but only detract in a small way from what is an excellent anti-establishment piece of historical anaylsis.

The quality of Mr. Winter's research can be best explained by the selective (mis)use of sources. A great example of the approach taken can actually be found on the cover of the book. Here's what a reviewer is meant to have said about the book........

Denis Winter has lobbed a hand grenade into the British historiography of the First World War... This angry attitude makes for vigorous and splendid entertainment... The author's indefatigable exploration of the sources and impassioned presentation of the case for the prosecution should ensure that his study is taken seriously by all future historians of the First World War.

Brian Bond, History Today

The actual quote from the review is as follows..............

[His] angry attitude makes for vigorous and splendid entertainment, but also raises questions about the author's objectivity and judgement... Occasional factual errors and overconfidence in the handling of casualty statistics also raise questions of judgement on larger issues...

Brian Bond, History Today

While this is nothing to do with Mr. Winter.....rather the dishonest practices of a copy writer, the actual approach is one that Mr. Winter uses throughout the book to make his points.

Not an honest attempt at history.........stay away from this one.

With this book Denis Winter seems to have launched a near-quixotic quest to get the real facts regarding Haig's command. One of the most important conclusions reached is that almost all the official histories, cabinet minutes, unit reports, and similar works have been very carefully vetted and 'cleaned up' before being published. Not even individual memoirs can be relied on as the gov't often had carrots and sticks in hand to deal with more independent-minded veterans. Winter suggests a broad, self-serving conspiracy by those at the top to preserve their reputations and to save the public the additional grief of learning that their sons/husbands/fathers may have died incidentally due to bureaucratic incompetence, amateurish leadership, or the sheer indifference of chateau generals.

Winter deconstructs the official mythology regarding Haig and exposes him to be a well-connected careerist interested more in being field marshal than in pursuing the effective and successful leadership of his troops. This isn't so surprising or unusual in that most democracies at least initially heavily rely on political appointees in times of mass mobilization (American Civil War, Pershing, Smuts, etc.). However, Haig seems to have devoted much of his WWI energies intriguing for the top job and writing daily diary entries (apparently meant for later public consumption). How is it that so many leading British figures found time not only to keep copious, detailed diaries but also to manage an entire war?

The book is divided into the following major sections: Haig's Credentials, The Attrition Battles of 1916-1917, The Attrition Period, 1918: A Year of Mobility, and Falsifying the Record. 'Haig's Credentials' examines how Haig's top-level connections with Esher and the king eventually unseated French and placed Haig securely in power for the remainder of the war. 'The Attrition Battles' critically analyzes Haig's refusal to stop a battle once it became obvious it would not succeed (usually the first 48 hours). 'The Attrition Period' looks at the Commonwealth armies under his command and his heavy reliance on Canadians and ANZACs. '1918' discusses Haig's poor preparations to meet the expected German spring offensives and his near panic, followed by placing supreme allied command into Foch's hands. 'Falsifying the Record' then goes into particular detail involving the cover-ups and manipulations of Haig's memoirs - apparently three different versions of them.

Denis Winter's analysis is highly critical, but he does give Haig some due credit for correctly anticipating the time and place of the German attack. But for the most part, Winter shows Haig in the likely true light, that of an aspiring careerist officer struggling to learn the military side of his trade and often scapegoating others for his own failures, e.g. Charteris, and selectively releasing self-serving diary excerpts. All in all a very insightful book about Haig that I recommend to any serious student of WWI. Consider reading John Terraine's To Win a War for an alternative pro-Haig/establishment view.

This book refutes many fond misconceptions of the universe, such as "twinkling" stars, our Sun always rising directly in the East and only the Moon causing tides.

Next, though it is not addressed in this book, we'll be told the Earth isn't flat and it doesn't rest of the back of a giant turtle, which stands on the back of an even larger turtle, which stands on an even larger turtle ... and so forth ALL THE WAY DOWN.

Comins misses the whole point about popular delusions. It's not that some of our most cherished beliefs are wrong; it's "Why do we get such nonsense and how do we survive with so many wrong ideas"?

For example: The light from stars really does "twinkle", just as the nursery rhyme says. The U.S. military believed this, so DARPA sponsored research to eliminate twinkles. It was so successful that the procedure is now used to eliminate the "twinkle" when using optical telescopes at places such as Kitt Peak observatory, near Tucson.

Two conclusions may be drawn: a) the starlight we see really does twinkle, and b) there's a good scientific reason for it.

Comins emphasizes solid scientific facts for the myths he demolishes, which is commendable. He offers intelligent explanations of the universe as it is now known. Some of his examples seem trivial; but, sometimes it is precisely minor errors that grow into major misconceptions.

His deft demolishing of myths many people have about the earth, moon, stars and the universe -- all physical realities -- raises an even more interesting question: "If people are so credible, how can democracy exist?"

Perhaps the answer is something akin to the "missing" 96 percent of the universe -- Democracy, like the universe, is simply beyond belief, but if you believe, it works. Wait a moment: Isn't that what he set out to disprove?

It's worth remembering when hearing politicians, used car salesmen and astronomers; people always seek answers, real or imaginary. We really do see twinkling stars, but it's not what it seems on first glance. It's the most valuable lesson you can take away from this book.

This book might be great for a first or second-grader. It contains trivial information that possibly appeals to readers whose educational ambitions are far from being realized. Instead of debunking historical misconceptions such as (1)the speed of light is instanteneous (Aristotle, Kepler), (2) a star's brightness is due to its distance alone(Newton), (3) meteors are of terrestrial origin - 'thunderstones' or materials catapulted from volcanoes, or (4)the absense of gail-force winds proves that the earth is stationary... we instead get lectured that (1) the position of a planet excerts negligible influence on a new-born child,(2)the heat radiated from the sun is not generated by something burning, (3) winds do not cause the tides, etc. Give me a break.

Considering the misinformation of the general public on astronomical matters (and matters in general), this book casts a welcome light on some of them. The author, further, has a web site listing even more misconceptions, given by students in his classes as well as contributors from his web site audience. The author also delves into the Why of how these misconceptions have arisen in people's minds.

The book is not perfect, and in fact could lead to the furtherance of some other misconceptions. For example, he lists a flat No to the question of whether black holes are black. A correspondence with the author indicates he was thinking of small black holes--with considerably less mass than the moon. Such small black holes would indeed glow, via Hawking radiation, but larger ones would indeed be black by anyone's standards, including those multi-solar-massive ones hypothesized to be at the centers of galaxies. However Prof. Comins' reply did rid me of my misconception that it is only for a short period of time that small black holes glow.

Alluding to the fact that the moon keeps the same side toward the earth all the time, the book states that in the lunar sky, the earth "won't budge, no matter how many days, weeks, months, years, or decades you watch it". In actuality, due to the eccentricity of the moon's orbit and the tilt of its axis relative to its orbit, the moon's center librates as seen from the earth, and as seen from the moon, the earth moves in the sky with a range of 16 degrees East-West (8 degrees either way from center) and 13 degrees north-south. As a result the earth could get to be 20 degrees from where you first saw it. That's 10 earth diameters, or 40 earth-viewed full moon's width, so it really more than "budges". Prof. Comins explains in correspondence that he "chose to be glib about this point because it would take quite a lot to describe issues related to libration from scratch with only a small gain in insight by the general reader." Yet one of his listed misconceptions was of the center of mass of the moon's core being at the geometric center of the moon; that difference is only about 1/2 mile, out of the 2000-mile lunar diameter.

In the book, Prof. Comins states that it is never safe to look directly at the sun without a proper solar filter. He doesn't exempt looking at the corona during totality of a solar eclipse. In his correspondence, he states "Concerning looking directly at the Sun during a total eclipse, it is definitely not safe to do so. A close friend of mine lost a significant amount of his vision doing so. Looking directly at the corona during a total eclipse is still extremely dangerous. Keep in mind that the Sun is in totality for only a matter of minutes, and as soon as it comes out, its brightness is dangerous." While I can understand the impact of personal tragedies, it's also true that people travel thousands of miles to view totality directly. I have done so four times and viewed the totally eclipsed sun with the unaided eye and even through a telescope. And to do so, one cannot have a filter, and my eyes are unscathed, as are those of many hundreds, or thousands, who go on eclipse cruises and expeditions. They have accurate predictions of the timing and accurate timers, and call out to all to "look away" at the appropriate time. As the NASA web site on eye safety during solar eclipses states: "In spite of these precautions, the total phase of an eclipse can and should be viewed without any filters whatsoever. The naked eye view of totality is completely safe and is overwhelmingly awe-inspiring!"

It has been said people go to watch car races in order to see the wrecks. Following that line of reasoning, the History Channel introduced a documentary series entitled Military Blunders. The companion book of the same name authored by Michael Coffey offers the same anecdotes, and the same paradigm, of the televised series.

Military Blunders examines wartime efforts that failed, beginning with the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand and ending with the invasion of Kuwait. The decidedly twentieth century focus of the book lends itself to the fact that wartime motion picture records came into existence following the turn of the century, and television documentaries are generally more appreciative of motion picture records than written ones.

Thus, the marketing force of presenting military history from a "blundering" point of view is a strong and visual one. Mistakes in wartime are common. Those interested in playing games of "what if" will find this tome fascinating. What if the Archduke Ferdinand's driver had not taken a wrong turn down a Sarajevo street? Also, some mistakes lend an eerie quality of mystery. Case in point: The last flight of the Lady Be Good, an American B-24 that disappeared in the Libyan desert during WWII. Its wreckage and the remains of her crew were discovered years later by a British oil exploration outfit.

Offered in short, easy to digest anecdotal chunks, the book proffers an easy to read litany of historical anecdotes. A handful of photographs in the center of the book help give visual backup to the tales inside. Fans of the History Channel and military history buffs everywhere should enjoy this well written and interesting book.

Most of the information found in this book can be found elsewhere, but it stil provides some frame of reference for those early forays into what went wrong for the particpants of WW2. This may be useful for those folks who are simply seeking some quick stories of bad decisions and their results.

It's vital to learn from mistakes of the past, of course, and no more so than in the military arena. Death and carnage are the seemingly inevitable result of soldiers' mistakes in war- or peacetime. Unfortunately, this work - which is often a verbatim transcript of the History Channel series - does little to examine the deep causes of military failures. Simply asserting that "blunders" caused military tragedies ignores the complex nature of military operations and the equally complex lessons which must be learned to avoid these problems. The book also adopts a superior, Monday-morning quarterback tone; easy to do with hindsight but annoying for the reader. Finally, Military Blunders suffers from small but irritating editing errors. For example - "Bismarck was soon sunk, sitting in port in Norway;" no, she was sunk off the coast of France after a furious battle; Tirpitz was sunk in Norway. The TV series which spawned this book is shallow but interesting, but this book itself adds little worthwhile information.

I read this when I was younger and I loved it. All the stories about the criminals who were too stupid to get away with their crimes were my favorites. It's understandable that older people might not enjoy it as much, although I still think it's a fun book. It's no Charles Dickens, but it's not meant to be. It's just a fun book to read when you need a break, or when you need to be reassured that there are people who have done dumber things than you have.

From the Brazilian robber who glued himself to the floor, to the thief who dropped a 600-pound safe on himself, to Goldie Hawn spilling wine all over Sly Stallone at a dinner attended by George Bush, Sr., the anecdotes in this little book are interesting, to say the least. However, they're just not funny. Maybe it's the sarcastic headings that introduce each anecdote, or maybe it's the rabidly factual wording and style that characterizes the entries, but the bottom line is that - somewhere between the whimsical and the factual - the humor has been lost.

On the other hand, this does make an interesting sociological/psychological reference book. What would make a job candidate want to arm wrestle his interviewer? What kind of person would invent "Gorilla Balls protein supplement snack"? And, above all else, what would motivate a person to make and market spinach french fries?

Regardless, this book does bear testimony to the fact that - as the introduction of the book aptly states - "it's a blunderful world!" It's just a pity that those blunders can't be retold humorously.

A final note: the authors of the book are supposed to be Allan Zullo and Allan Evllo. If the corresponding first names, and the matching "llo" in the last names don't tip you off, then when you receive the book and see only Allan Zullo's name on the front you just might begin to suspect that this blooper isn't quite accidental. Is there some kind of witty interplay going on here, are they just trying to pull your leg, are they gently poking fun at themselves, or was this indeed a mistake? Faced with the risk of saying something really stupid, I'll shut up and let you decide.

- Benjamin Gene Gardner

The setup of the book makes it easy to use. The words and phrases are accurate; my native Yiddish speaking mother liked it. We were able to start talking and having fun right away. I was raised around Yiddish, but it hadn't occurred to my parents to teach it to their children. Love this book.

This book appears to be a first draft. No pronuciation help. Does not show how use the words. It would be worth buying if the author finishes it.