Very misleading title from an author with a grudge
938692
What appealed to me when I obtained this book was in the subtitle "How to Read Between the Lines When the Media Manipulate the Numbers." A very important subject. But it appears that Prof. Epstein is not focused broadly on the media, but has some very strong grudges against certain members of the media, most notably Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman.

I don't have the background to judge whether Mr. Krugman is guilty of all of the errors of fact and judgment that the author accuses him of. If I'd read a book accurately titled "How to Read Between the Lines When the Media Manipulate the Numbers" I might have been better able to make an evaluation.

But for me Econospinning became a endless bitter rant against Krugman and just a few others, going mainly after very specific examples rather than offering me a broader tool set that could be applied to the myriad writers and commentators who write daily on "the numbers." Not only was I not learning what the subtitled promised, but I was growing VERY weary of the author's great negativity.

A major disappointment!
4723948
Having read one of her books I was intrigued by the title and the possibilities it offered.  However, like most of the other readers, I am extremely disappointed by the plot, characterization, and writing style.  The main character is despicable and self-absorbed.  The descriptions of his many travels struck me as pretentious -- for instance, did she have to enumerate the various cities he visited in Italy, such as Milan, Florence, Rome (in parentheses) in a context totally unrelated to the narrative?  In many instances I felt as though this was a name-dropping competition, whether it be his observations of the hotel guests at the resort, or the watches and pens of his father and of all the people he was watching.
This book was a waste of my time and after fifty pages I decided to speed read to get it over with.  A good read keeps your mind ad heart engaged!
4788947
I am very sorry to say that the subtitle of this book is highly misleading and after, perhaps after 2 complaints by whites about blacks we are bombarded by a myriad of slights on blacks by whites.  Page after page, chapter after chapter Ms Williams pontificates on how her people are poorly treated by the white folk.  All this may be true, but I certainly wouldnt have paid$22.00 less 10% to read this one sided, even if true,continuum of how poor the race relations are, without a further note about how whites really feel.  I pride myself on being unbiased, but this is a very one sided, mean spirited review of white people.  Thumbs Down.
3354371
I used to be a Michael Crichton fan. Emphasis on "used to be". I've become very disappointed with his preachy polemics.

In "State of Fear" he uses vile, contrived, implausible scenarios to accuse the scientific proponents of global warming of willfully employing inaccuracies and misrepresentations--the same transgressions of which he himself is guilty throughout his book! I could barely finish it, and felt ashamed for the author when I finished the book.

I can't imagine why he thought he needed to author an entire novel (and a ham-handed one, at that) to express his petulant dislike of and disrespect for people who are genuinely concerned about the environment. What was the point of the entire exercise? And I'll never understand why he hatefully portrays his own critics (apparently) as thinly-veiled characters being eaten by cannibals or as rapists of children (see his latest book's attack on the political writer Michael Crowley for what appears to be a very disturbing continuation of this nasty-minded trick.)

I've become very disappointed--disgusted, in fact--with a former favorite author. Perhaps he needs a ten-year sabbatical and several hundred hours of therapy to regain his emotional equilibrium and restore his objectivity? He could be a fine author, if only he were not interested in using his fame and popularity as a proverbial gun-turret from which to viciously and unfairly take pot-shots at his enemies--real or imagined.

Sadly, his hard-hearted, vicious prose has slowly lost all of its early promise in the service of something dark which lurks within him where a man his age ought to be able to find some wisdom.
3806957
These are not animal stories and they are not dog stories, they are petty little stories about this author's excuse for not feelng like she belongs anywhere or to anyone. Ho hum, guess what, it comes with moving here and there. What else is new?  How can anyone who has every cared for a pet give all the dogs in this book one personality? Don't forget the pretentious, half-hearted wisdom to justify this author's platform, which must have been added during editing to help marketing.
2505261
Having read this "book" I was horrified and regret even purchasing the "story".  Not only for the people that are named, living and dead, and whose hometowns and some family members are also named, but for the child she so callously attacks over and over.  It is poorly written, poorly edited and written from a perspective that is skewed to the point of myopic.  From chapter one on it is obvious that this book is written by an individual whose own mental health is questionable.  Kathleen talks of being teased, tortured by being teased.  She talks of hating her life because it is not pristine and perfect, without the hated "males" in her world.  She talks of how she hates all males and how dirty and disgusting they are.  There are numerous rants regarding filth, dirt, poor people, fat people and people she perceives as not good enough.  Kathleen Hoy Foley talks of how she helped torture her brothers, beating them with a belt and not until she is in her 60s does she repent in any form for this behavior.  She talks of rape, however, she continued to date the father of the child she dispises for over 2 years.  Kathleen claims that she is the only one that saw this abusive behavior, that her mother ignored it and encouraged it.  Mrs. Foley's supposed and well publicized abuse was, in reading the book, something that was not only not sexual in nature, as far as the stepfather she acuses quite publically on her own website and her brothers, but apparently something she "dreamed" as happening.  In the end, it is a mindless rant that explains away an affair that she ended by refusing to face the world in a realistic fashion.  Kathleen is the female version of a mysoginist, hating all men and worse, she has no empathy for anyone at all.  This lack applies to the man she is now married to and claims to love.  Her hate of the child she bore is due to the fact that she sees the world in such a way as to believe that anyone that is not her is not perfect.  Descriptive in nature, she sees the world as clean and good or perverse and dirty and only she, her chosen off-spring and, by dint of rescuing her from her hated home, her husband, are worthy of life or living.  It is disturbing to say the least.
3495225
I am an avid cozy fan and usually love most cat themed mysteries but this turned my stomach.  Not only was it offensive to cat lovers by having the one woman in the entire town who was kind to animals and rescued them be a ditzy, hoarder type, "cat lady" but it promoted animal abuse!  I was frankly shocked when the main character's father started not only to make obnoxious comments towards his daughter about Shadow the cat but towards the cat as well.  When the verbal abuse progressed towards actual physical abuse towards the cat and the daughter (and Shadow's supposed caretaker) not only allowed but condoned it I almost threw up.

I have no idea why an author who clearly hates animals enough to not only make derogatory comments about animal rescuers but condones animal abuse and actually promotes it in her books would write about cats.

I cannot recommend this at all and my copy is going into the recycling bin rather than passing this filth on.  I certainly will never purchase another of this author's books.
2750097
The author apparently did not do too much research on the topic.  The title itself is inaccurate.  Matthew Winkler was not a pastor, he was a preacher (or minister).  The church of Christ goes by the Bible, which uses Pastor, elder, bishop and elder synonymously.  He was not a "pastor" in the church of Christ.  The author obviously does not understand the church of Christ faith at all.  She makes the church out to be supportive of oppressing women, as if women don't have the right to work or have a job, have separate bank accounts, etc.  The fact is, a woman killed her husband.  If she had been a Catholic or a Baptist, religion would not have even been an issue in the case.  Since the church of Christ is known for not budging on their stance that the Bible is their only authority, they do not do as many denominations do today and change things based on what the majority believes, or what is entertaining, or telling people what they want to hear to get more people (and money), many find the need to attack it.  This case gave the media the chance to jump on it.  However, if you're going to build a story around the victim and killer's faith, then the author/media should at least research that faith thoroughly before attacking it.  I would say, if you want an objective, non-biased look at this case, do not read this book.  There is an obvious feminist and anti-church of Christ slant in this telling.  The author makes the murderer out to be a victim.  She could have gotten a divorce.  She didn't have to shoot her husband in the back.  Anyone who claims that she felt she couldn't get a divorce because she was in the church of Christ is wrong.  The author stated, "Divorced men are not preachers in the churches of Christ...period."  That is inaccurate.  I know two church of Christ preachers who are divorced.  (One had a wife who cheated on him, and the other had a wife who left him because of differences...she just didn't want to go to church or be a preacher's wife anymore.)  It's not like her reputation in the community is better off as a murderer than it would have been as a divorcee.  There is always an option other than murder.  You can't force anyone to be a Christian or faithful.  Any church of Christ preacher realizes that.  The church discourages divorce, since the Bible says that God hates divorce.  However, sometimes its members feel that there is no other way.  They may not have the right to be remarried (unless their spouse committed adultery) but they can get divorced regardless.  It would definitely condone divorce over murder.  The author makes Mary out to be a sweet, innocent little lamb that couldn't hurt a fly, but Mary got in over her head when she got sucked into a check fraud scam, and instead of facing her husband about it, she killed him.  Then, when some media hungry attorneys heard about the case and offered to represent her pro-bono, she changed her story to what she was coached to say, and she began saying she was abused and made the church to be an oppressive faith that she was trapped in.  She said that her husband wanted her to dress up in sexy lingerie for sex.  Oh no!  How horrible!  Who cares?  Whose husband hasn't bought his wife some sexy lingerie.  There's nothing wrong with that if they are married.  Married couples can have whatever sexual relations they want to have in the bedroom.  If she didn't want to wear it, then don't wear it.  She acted like she had the right to kill her husband because he asked her for a little role-play in the bedroom.  There was no proof or even an indication that she had endured any kind of abuse, until she needed an excuse to get off.  She got away with murder, then got back custody of her kids.  Had she not been a preacher's wife, I doubt she would have gotten off.  They used the circumstances to sway the case, and trashed the church to do so.  The bottom line is...she committed murder.  She bore false witness.  She blasphemed the church.  She got off Scot-free in this world, but I would NOT want to be her on Judgment Day.
4618715
I  was disappointed in the book; The author has missed
so much she could have said to reinforce the title.
1071459
As many of the other one star reviews pointed out, the title is misleading. There are no specific EMDR techniques taught. What bothered me even more about this book were some of the ridiculous examples given for "traumatic events". The author would often connect back severe adulthood psychiatric issues (eating disorder, PTSD, depression, anxiety etc.) to trivial one time events such as being scared of a storm one night when 5 years old, or a classmate vomiting in class. Making silly connections like this is not only unscientific and give a bad reputation to counseling but is also profoundly insulting to those who have been through real trauma.
3945980
I was really disappointed when I started reading this book and found out the first 1/3 of it or so is really about the author's breast cancer! I was hoping for a feel-good pet story. I found the author to not have much of a sense of humor, or humilty which might have made me feel more sympathetic to her. Instead she seems very entitled and whines about how she and her husband - wealthy Manhattanites - can only afford 2 weeks in the rich enclave of Martha's Vineyard each yr (but the owner of the rental cottage pities them and throws in 1 week free each yr!). Even though the author writes/edits for the NY TIMES she is not a good writer IMO. The end of the book, when they are searching for the lost dog, is filled with minute details of every encounter they have with the local townspeople helping them look for the dog (like he was married in 1946 after graduating from Harvard and they have 5 kids, Evelyn, etc.). All of these details MUST have been garnered in later interviews, when she knew she was writing this book, yet she never mentions this so as you are reading its like she has stopped to do in-depth interviews while they should be out searching for the dog! A much better cute cat book is Homer's Odyssey.
3403630
I recieved this book as a Christmas gift, and was actually in anticipation of reading it. I am an epileptic and am always searching for understanding and people to relate to. So of course, Amy seemed to be the right author to go to!

Wrong.

After the two chapters, I became sorely disappointed. Disrespectful, whining, spoiled, bratty, and in desperate need of a thunk on the forehead. Wake up, Amy! Appreciate life! As I turned the pages of this book, I became increasingly weary of her moaning about her lack of will to live, her search for sympathy, but upon recieving it, repelling it. I was tired of her talk of subtle suicide threats. ESPECIALLY the disregard and disrespect aimed at healthcare professionals. These people worked long and hard to keep her alive, to understand how her body would take medications and a new heart, just so that she could enjoy a few more years on this earth. Ridiculous that she can't at least lay back and let a nurse put an IV in her arm without uttering curse words.

She's had so much opportunity in the gift of life she's been given. I cannot believe how little she's made of it.

What can I say? I'm disappointed.
3077885
I appreciate some of the advice provided by the author.  She mentions not retaliating, being patience, and supportive for the betrayed spouse.  But overall, the book is one-sided and negative towards the "betrayer/offender".  The language is negative and offers little in the way of hope, forgiveness or balance.
She admits that she is coming from a conservative, Christian foundation - and there are subtle statements that confirm her personal bias.  There was a part where she groups homosexuality, addiction, and trauma/abuse together.  Seeking a same-sex partner is no where near the same as an addiction.  She repeats herself and reiterates that a broken marriage starts and ends with the "betrayer" taking the guilt, shame, pain, trauma of the affair.  There is no mention of how to start forgiveness or how to encourage hope.
This whole book could have been summarized into 1-2 chapters.  I would NOT recommend this book to a friend/couple in a fragile place and in search of healing.
2544289
As someone who has worked for almost forty years with others who have fought to save south Florida's western Everglades,I looked forward to this book.  But Orlean simply doesn't get it.  Her cartoon characterization of  the Seminole people is worse than inaccurate, it is old-fashioned  stereotyping at its worst.  The author paid so little real attention to the  swamp she claims to have struggled through that she doesn't even know where  it is -- her description, 25 miles south of Naples, would place that  ancient cypress forest squarely in the Gulf of Mexico.  Orlean's historical  research is more than sloppy:  how could anyone take an old Spanish account  of lobsters in Florida's coastal waters and then write that these  salt-water creatures were native to an inland fresh-water forest?
Her  discussion of more recent events is just as off base: Orlean's story of a  would-be developer threatening violence against those who saved the  Fakahatchee is actually (she correctly names the promoter's organization)  about a man who threatened to kill me in a dispute over land no where near  the Fakahatchee, in what is now the Big Cypress National Preserve.  And the  author doesn't even write accurately about Florida orchids (the Ghost  orchid, for example is not as she claims found only in the Fakahatchee),  much less the collectors who are obsessed by them.  Orlean has skimmed very  lightly through south Florida's rich cultural and natural history, and  tossed what intrigued her into the Fakahatchee, a place that no reader will  know much about after having read this book.  Carl Hiassen's fiction is  more accurate about people, places and events in south Florida than is this  frothy and misleading book.
3154219
Like many, I have been a long-time fan of Father Andrew Greeley and especially his Bishop Blackie Ryan series. The good Father, however, has now betrayed the trust of his readers with this book of bias and hate.

Throughout the book, the author accuses Republicans (not some or a few but all) of being wealthy, corrupt, and crooks.  He does not miss an opportunity to level an attack againsts all Republicans, even those who died well over one hundred years ago.  One might expect that from a partisan book written by political lackeys.  One expects more, however, from a novel written by a priest.

What is most disturbing is that a Catholic priest using a fictional Catholic bishop to directly and indirectly debase all Republicans leaves the impression that his views have the imprimateur of the Catholic Church.  Unlike the ficitonal church in this book, the real Catholic Church teaches love and forgiveness.

While he condemns the demogogues of the religious right, Father Greeley has adopted the very same tactics of hate and bias which he supposedly deplores.

Perhaps Father Greeley should write future novels with the words of the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, who also hailed from Illinois, in mind: "With malice toward none, with charity for all."

This is one book which should not have been written. Or, perhaps it should have as it exposes the real Father Greeley.
2139794
the title is quite lurid, i am not sure who the tyrants were, the book opens with G Washington as a British officer ambushing and attacking a French military party, or diplomatic party, killing a few, accepting the surrender, with GW's Indian allies then killing the prisoners.

So? GW is a war criminal?

the author continues along, GW responding to British mass murder by deprivation of American prisoners of war- they seemed to capture a lot of each others' guys - and GW threatening to treat his British POWs similarly, oh the horror the horror, didn't happen

then seques into some tarring and feathering, which is quite damaging, 140 degree F onto your skin, mostly our side against the Tories, oh the horror the horror

--

while leaving out the entirety of the loyalist/ Tories and extended scorched earth policy and near civil war during our Revolutionary war, try 'Tories for the King,' for a useful read of the time

The author utterly mangles the critical 1776 period, see David McCullough for a useful read of that time

i knew i was doomed when i saw Howard Zinn in the index

the author is biog on physiognomy (faces and 'florid drinker' )

the author favors one or another General Lee as preferred commander, notwithstanding that GW had the personal attributes, popularity and loyalty, to command an army of an unborn nation, and Lee was a drunk and swill

the author waxes endlessly on GW's great personal popularity on a 'too good to be true mode - was GW ever naked,' for example, pure envy and snark and beyond that stupidity by the author

and manages to racialize GW's false teeth, as having come from slaves, cheaper,

GW left behind a prodigious correspondence, and this is drawn on extensively, for those of us who like source documents

the author talks endlessly about GW as dictator as he acquired power from the Continental Congress, to conduct the war absent civilian micro management, notwithstanding that every action was exceedingly painfully negotiated between GW and Congress

the detail disproves the thesis of dictator, as dictator is usurper, not grantee

-

the advertising said this would help us with understanding iraq and gitmo,executive usurpation,

sheer lies in adverts

-
the author is some honcho at Yale Olin scholar, which confirms for those of us in conservo land, the intellectual bankruptcy of the leftopian academic view

-

the author discusses Shays' rebellion, blaming foreclosure and speculators, wevr though all the US was experiencing that

and downplays the broken promises to soldiers

and leaves out these these rebels were also known as 'regulators' - a cute word when we have 2A arguments,

[...]

--

the best part is much more detail on Benedict Arnold

-

and the author is fair obsessed about the fairer sex, who showed considerably mor gumption that 'fair sex' indicates including some who went to war

and is positively obsessed with who was sleeping with whom, and how females using sexual wiles influenced the war

sheesh

-

an utter waste of time

--
841483
I bought this for the holiday I was going on with my girlfriend as agift while her son stayed with our grandparents. Little did I know that the cover imagery and associated title triggered her long repressed shame over cutting herself and an attempted suicide when she was younger. She retreated to the safe space of our hotel room for the length of the stay and while she courageously made it through the book (she wouldn't be oppressed by an author who clearly doesn't think about ALL audiences and the impact words and images have on them), she later told me it was absolute garbage and she would rather slit her wrists again than have to read it. Terrible material from an insensitive author.