A probing look at how Soviet agents managed to infiltrate the U.S. Embassy and steal top-secret codes reveals the alarming official neglect of American security from the ambassadorial level down
#154956 in Books Vintage Books 1993-06-29 1993-06-29Original language:EnglishPDF # 1 8.00 x .60 x 5.10l; .52 #File Name: 067974438X256 pages
Review
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful. Three StarsBy SamwiseStarts intriguing and informative; but later loses its former quality.20 of 24 people found the following review helpful. Will Leave You Hungry For MoreBy Bruce LoveittI enjoyed this book. It is well written and interesting and I learned quite a bit. The reason I only gave it 3 stars is that the book is too short. There are sections where you wish Mr. Schivelbusch had fleshed things out a bit. The book has many interesting illustrations but in a 228 page book over 100 pages of illustrations are just too much! So; be forewarned! If you are looking for some depth to sink your teeth into this is not the book for you. However; if you are satisfied by small portions than by all means.....Bon Appetit!0 of 1 people found the following review helpful. Good; but a bit dismissive of past intelligence.By KailaI'm about half through the book and I find it good over all; but there is one aspect that makes me a bit twitchy. I'm currently reading the section about coffee.The author does an excellent job of noting how coffee and the symbolic overtones it took functioned during the early modern period. However; he doesn't seem to know that even today coffee is known to have the side effects attributed to it then. He attributes qualities like "drying"; etc; to symbolic or misinformed aspects of the humoral philosophy of medicine; and hypothesizes that "dryness" was attributed to coffee perhaps because it was roasted.Well; while the humoral system was so flawed that that it was laughable; it wasn't entirely wrong. Coffee does dehydrate people. It does cause severe health issues today; and doctors tell people to stop drinking it or reduce intake for many of the same reasons. The terminology was different; but the observations were actually fairly accurate. I agree with the author that coffee was highly contested for socio-religio-political reasons and that the health issues were used to that end; but the author is wrong several times when he reduces those health effects to ONLY symbolic. They were both.I'm actually hoping he resolves this a bit later. Sometimes people can come off heavy in an argument at one point in a text; and then modify that perspective later. This reader looks forward to finding out and if she finds it to be so; will alter her review accordingly.
