Lurid? Yes. True? I doubt it.
357615
In today's age, when nothing can said to be sacred, Darwin Porter proves that a certain sort of shock value still persists. Porter, who specializes in the kiss and tell biographical novel, turns his focus to a "straight" biography. In this case he digs up the skeletons that kept company in the closet that was the life of Humphrey Bogart.
In order to concoct such a tome, Porter uses the old tabloid formula: one part truth and one part memories by co-stars (all of whom are conveniently decreased). Blend well, add five parts pure baloney, and presto! A new lurid biography, perfect for those times in the bathroom when a Jackie Collins novel is not available.
So how true is Porter's book? He bases Bogart's early life on incidents that did happen and speculates from there. For instance, it was commonly known that Bogart did not injure his lip during his Naval service as he never saw action. Porter attributes the injury to a beating by Bogart's father. O.K., that is a plausible explanation. So is the intrigue during his first marriage to Helen Mencken, who was one of the shining lights of Broadway's Lavendar Set. However, Porter gets himself in deep literary doo-doo when he begins to speculate about everyone Bogart supposedly slept with, and the reader can almost feel the book's theme derail as Porter plays a "can you top this" game with himself. If Bogart were truly the rake Porter makes him out to be, one wonders how he ever found time to act.
Porter cites the notes on Bogart's life by Bogart's friend and fellow actor Kenneth MacKenna and gossip columnist Stanley Haggart. Porter also depends on the testimony of such co-stars as Joan Blondell, Ruth Gordon, George Raft, Eric Linden and Mercedes de Acosta. The problem here is that the sources were well into the twilight of their years when interviewed and we don't know for sure whether they were working Porter to an extent or whether they had reached the age where legend becomes fact.
The use of a form of narrative usually found in a novel is also a hinderance, as neither Porter nor his sources could have been privy to the sort of intimate conversations he claims took place.
And finally, take into consideration the author's praise for Kenneth Anger, who brought back into vogue the sort of reporting one thought had died with the demise of "Confidential" magazine.
The book is a naughty pleasure, but in the final review, reader beware.
2113270
As a long-time "progressive," I looked forward to reading a confirmation of my views. Not so fast! He calls into question principles I thought were settled, such as transparency. We need,he says, less direct democracy and more trust in the officials we have elected. In the face of today's mistrust being borne out by revelations of misdeeds, it's hard to buy into his optimism. His arguments are sometimes more provocative than convincing. I find the book unexpectedly unsettling; I wish I found it more practical.
619276
Not what I was expecting. I believe in this, but I wanted to hear direct evidence, not a bunch of stories.
3235383
Too early to tell what the longevity will be - these things always die within a year, but this one claims to have a lithium battery instead of NiCd or NiMH...which if true should work much better. Not going to tear it apart (and ruin its water resistance) to find out, so giving them the benefit of the doubt.

But I would be forgiven for doubting it, because the instructions, the box, the description on the product page, and the device itself all contradict each other. This unit is off during the day, and only comes on during the night when it detects motion (the instructions in the box state that it enters a low-level lighting mode when no motion is detected at night - that is dead wrong). The back of the box correctly describes the on/off operation, but the side of the box says "High light and Dim light switch," which is also wrong (the only thing the switch does is turn the unit on or off). The side of the box also says "Over 12 Hours lighting time after one day sun charge" - in the absence of a low light night mode, that's simply impossible: there's no way the battery is going to keep those LEDs shining at full brightness all night. The product page says it turns off after 10 seconds, it is in fact 30 seconds; on this one, the box and instructions have got it right. The box side says it is waterproof (hopefully true) and "heatproof" - what does that even mean? - while the instructions warn to keep away from fire (I'm betting on the instructions being correct).

I note that the Amazon distributor chastised another reviewer for complaining that it does not stay on all night, correctly citing that at least as of right now they make no such claim on their product page. But that's irrelevant, as the instructions and (one side of) the box do make those claims.

Be advised that while each of the LEDs is indeed very bright, this is an extraordinarily small unit, about 4" square with the actual LEDs covering about 3" by 1.5". Seems to be a good little unit for the price, but don't expect to light up your back yard. On the other hand, at this price you could buy a bunch of them as insurance against one of them going bad.
1656553
Futuyma's Science on Trial is really two books.  One is a lucid, accessible, and convincing argument against so-called creation science.  I don't think any reasonable person could come away unconvinced as to the fact of evolution.

Unfortunately there is another book in here too.  Whenever Futuyma wanders off topic into biblical scholarship, theology, metaphysics, ethics, politics, or anything except science, he generally shows himself to be about as plug ignorant on those subjects as the creationists are about science.  Expertise in biology does not automatically entitle you to hold forth in these other disciplines.  Stick to the science and, please, a little humility.

One thing that particularly irritated me is that Futuyma rather airily dismisses the possibility that something could be at the same time undoubtedly true and yet undermining of the basis for any truly humane morality.  I think that is dangerously naive.  Futuyma needs to read his Nietzche and his Sophocles.  As the former noted there can exist such a thing as a DESTRUCTIVE truth.  Or as Oedipus states, "The truth is pain, for those who see."  What the Greek tragedian suspected, we now know.  Ironically, it is Futuyma here who is the totally uncritical follower of the Gospel of John.  "The truth shall set you free."  If only it were that simple.
1100182
Dance DJs and serious collectors should be advised that this "orchestra" sounds synthesized. Hmm. Maybe pasturized is a better word? The tempos are appropriate for a slower foxtrot. I can't imagine being inspired to actually dance by any of these. I can imagine having nightmares about being stuck in an elevator with this playing on and on.
1117783
If you have an open mind you might find this an interesting viewpoint. However, to a true believer this was rank heresy.
3567364
But is this book for real??  Surreal is more like it. While, in the end, I enjoyed the book for what it is -- superficial entertainment -- I secretly held out hope of finding the truth here, out of the mouth of a babe; instead I found a woefully inadequate Sunday sermon hawking trite imagery and canned absolutes. First of all, the father led the witness on down the garden path until such path became the road to ruin veering off into left field somewhere.  Continually pressed upon, coerced into hammering out details, the poor kid no doubt felt compelled to elaborate or confabulate, whichever came first with the most shock or shlock value. Either that or the father held up detailed cue cards that the kid couldn't possibly miss the telling of.  I certainly don't fault the child; he's just doing what he's told to augment the family coffers. If heaven is for real, and I have no doubt it is, I would hope it holds more mysteries than are dreamt of in this overambitious stretch of armchair philosophizing.
2288317
As much as I may like to, it's impossible for me to give this recording a favorable review.  John Cage is not a bad composer, in fact, he's written quite a few marvelous pieces, like his "Sonatas and Interludes for Prepared Piano."  This is cutting-edge music that is taking risks with every note, and yet it is fantastically listenable.
Unfortunately, "Litany for the Whale" doesn't share these characteristics.  It is cutting-edge, certainly, and it takes a great deal of risks.  But it isn't listenable.  At times it's practically painful to listen to it, simply because it is so strange.  Cage's twisted nihilistic philosophy is all to evident here.  There is no real attempt to make it musical or listenable, and many attempts are made to make it unusual.
John Cage has written good music.  This is not some of it.
1054523
Supersized doses of suspension of disbelief are needed for this one. If you aren't bothered by extraordinarily improbable situations, then you may like it. In my case, blaming outer space aliens for the murders was almost as believable. And there is the not usual inexplicable behavior by the main character at the very end just to jazz up the excitement level. ("What's the dumbest thing I could possibly do? Ok, that's what I'll do.)
243979
high drama underground!  the logistics alone will amaze any reader.  then spending days and even weeks underground with no light except the battery powered or acetylene headlamps.  always damp.  i'll read about it, i wouldn't do it, anyone who does is much more daring than i ever would have been even in my reckless youth.  may you all be safe, all you who explore caves.
2073384
Run not walk to buy this book.  Its' conclusions are surprising and even more surprising is how conventional wisdom could be so wrong.
1887832
"Wind Beneath..."  rings so false to me.  This song begs us to listen to it's words of praise and humility [maybe not so much humility..] anyway, to the words and not whole. It does not sound life-affirming at all. All this somber, pompously exquisite praise is lavished on one who surely is as close as close can be, yet not named in the song.  So, is this a pop-hymn to it's own [fictional character] singer and - or the 'friend' in question or the unfortunate listener? Therefore, people attempting to dance to it at weddings etc., are thus very deluded, indeed. No offence intended.

Bette was far from the first to sing it [do a search]! Unless I hear one by accident I am not seeking out earlier covers, though the earlier male/ country singer versions might have avoided the nasty subtext 'I am a diva and thanks for being my stepstool' I feel from Bette's version. Period.  The extra vocal flourishes near the end of Bette's version only reinforce those  negative feelings towards the song. No diva is perfect.
1824377
If the book seems shockingly realistic, that's because the author's lived such adventures. While many readers have grown up in suburbia, the author grew up in the wilds of the South Pacific and consorted with types we used to read about in National Geographic. He is no "armchair traveler," he has lived these adventures. The cover alone scares me to death. Who can resist that?  From: Sharon Love Cook, author of the mystery: A Nose for Hanky Panky
4710645
It is no surprise that this book has generated so much controversy. Whenever a boondoggle's uncovered, the perpetrators are not going to slip away silently. They'll fight back with as much smoke and noise as they can muster. They'll attack the messenger. They'll shout "fraud!" stridently and repeatedly, but without any supporting evidence. They'll post bogus reviews. They'll give their own reviews high ratings, and low ratings to others. They'll nitpick; they'll do anything *except* address the central issue. And they'll hope you won't notice.

But a calm, reasoned reading of this book reveals some simple truths: A second-rate scientist (a key characteristic of a second-rater is repeatedly to refer to other scientists -- many of them Nobelists -- as the "best and brightest" in a sneering, sarcastic tone) reports a startling result, based on a flimsy experiment. Other, first-rate scientists (if not the "best and brightest" then certainly at least "better and brighter") can't reproduce the results. Nevertheless, funding is provided to develop devices based on the assumption that the results are correct. Science being what it is, the repeated failure to replicate the results by anyone not affiliated with the original group calls the whole business into question. Finally, cooler heads prevail, and most of the funding is withdrawn. As with cold fusion and other bits of pathological science, claims of confirmation will never die away, and a hard-core contingent of supporters will remain to fight on fiercely. But a telling characteristic is/will be the involvement of only second-raters.

Some criticize this book for its tone. I agree in part, for I believe that it is quite possible that Carl Collins suffers from a mental illness. I think he earnestly believes what he's saying. It's easy to poke fun at the delusional, but it probably isn't very nice. Had there been more evidence of conscious intent to defraud, I'd feel differently. If you track the bizarre antics and postings by Collins and his wife, Doina, you get the real feeling that they are unwell upstairs.

I enjoyed reading this book, and learned quite a bit, even though I travel in circles that intersect that world frequently. In the end, I developed some sympathy for prof. Collins. He yearns for a greatness that he will never achieve, and seems to believe that, if only Ms. Weinberger et al would go away, a call from Stockholm would follow soon after.
803038
It would have been an entertaining little story....if it was not true!  I agree with all the other reviews as this is "scary stuff".
3288414
There's tons of sex but it manages to not be sexy. Over the top violence which manages to not be shocking. It has a story which forces suspension of disbelief to work overtime. Still I read it almost in a single setting simply because I couldn't look away. Fans of the bizarre will dig it. If you are not one of them, don't say you weren't warned.