2 comments about What Would Martin Say?.

1. Yes, I want to thank the author for writing this book. He tells the true story of a great man and a great movement--told as only someone who was personally there and lived through it can tell it. Jones uses the very close relationship he had with MLK not to aggrandize himself but to inform and educate anyone who chooses to read this book. The book provides balanced context and fascinating and sometimes unexpected insights, told in an unconstrained, thought-provoking manner. The book seems to be written by a self-effacing man who contributed greatly to the civil rights movement and now is passing along his knowledge and insights about MLK to all of us, regardless of our age/generation. I really enjoyed reading about what would Martin say about many issues of our time, and wish the book was longer.



2. I am so impressed with Mr Jones' observations. He takes the historical Martin King and brings him to 2008, addressing topics such as Black-on-Black crime, the current status of 'the struggle', the responsibility of modern Black America, the 'Jena Six', today's modern so-called 'Black Leaders', and a host of others.
   
   Mr Jones prefaces each topic with an historical account of how Dr King addressed a similar or identical situation. Mr Jones uses each recollection as a launching pad to address current subjects pertinent in the lives of Black America today, eminently qualifying him to surmise what he believes Dr King would say on the subject in 2008.
   
   Most if not all of these journeys in time are the accounts of the man who was present with Dr King at the time. More than just interesting sidebars, they validate Mr Jones as he gives compelling, rational argument for the positions he believes Dr King would take today.
   
   Mr Jones does not shy away from topics that he could have just as easily avoided. He could have successfully written a book where he honors Dr King's memory but steps on fewer toes. Mr Jones does just the opposite - he gets his big stompin' boots out and commences to "kickin' & takin".
   
   I stopped reading this book and immediately gave it to my niece for a college graduation present. I am ordering additional copies for my son, daughter, other nieces & nephews, as well as a copy for myself to finish. I hope that I see a dog-eared, frequently read copy on their bookshelves in the years to come.
   
   Thank you, Mr Jones!
   
   -RCH Sr-

5 comments about In the Ring: The Trials of a Washington Lawyer.

1. A disjointed and uneven presentation of the highlights of the career of a high-profile Washington, D.C. litigator. It is written in the style of that town, with many words devoted (in a modest way, of course) to what a grand job the author did in representing some totally innocent and famous client. Praise is lavished on most public figures, with scores settled on a few notable back hats; here, e.g., Judge Walsh, Senator DeConcini, and NY Times publisher Sulzberger.
   
   Of course a child of the author goes to Sidwell Friends and the manager of The Palm is mentioned. And, growing up in Brooklyn he loved the Dodgers.
   
   Mr. Bennett's advice to young lawyers boils down to be honest and have balance in your lives. Which is good advice, but you probably do not need to buy this book to obtain it.
   
   Mr. Bennett has been a central figure in a number of the most important legal situations of the past few decades. Unfortunately, in this book, he writes in a style that indicates to me that this book was a toss off effort, done while he was still active and distracted in his day job. Rare are the hard, keen and full descriptions of any of the interesting public figures with whom he came into contact. Mr. Bennett, the one-time amateur boxer, pulls his punches.



2. This is a fantastic "inside look" of Bob Bennett. He is very detailed in his descriptions of happenings in his life, both as a youngster in Brooklyn, NY and later as a professional in Washington, D. C. My husband and I were glued to the pages, not wanting to put down the book, at least not until we completed the chapter we were reading. In the center of the book are various family photographs, making the text even more enjoyable. It's a great read.



3. This is one of those books I read hating myself every minute for wasting my time. My recurring thought was that Bennett promised everyone who ever did him a favor that they'd be mentioned in his memoir. Bennett never lost a case even when he didn't win, and teaches young lawyers the value of honesty, preparation, early connections with powerful people, and most importantly the value of having big bucks and political clout behind you. Everyone is "wonderful" save those who disagreed with him. There are no insights which cannot be gained through far less narcissistic and biased sources. What the book in lacked substance, it did not compensate in the writing.



4. Bennett reveals himself to be a blow-hard and a bully of the first order. His unreserved defense of a powerful client, the acknowledged sexual predator Bill Clinton, and piling on of scorn for Paula Jones and her evil "right wing" supporters, are not actions that any attorney who truly cares about justice should seek to advertise. Likewise, the Catholic Church no doubt made the mistake of thinking that it was hiring a lawyer to defend it rather than attack it from within. Bennett might have been worthy of some respect had he chosen to shut up and not engage in such blatant self-promotion.



5. This is an absolutely great book. If you like Washingtion DC political insiders history that is a great read to boot, this book is for you.

5 comments about How Can You Defend Those People?.

1. Hysterically Entertaining
   
   Enchanted by the quagmires, challenges, and events that surround the lives of attorneys, media commentators, and entertainers?
   
   Interested in the inside scoop on high profile cases, courtroom dramas, actors, players, and the personal boundaries that attorney's often face?
   
   Want to read something that will make you laugh out loud, get teary eyed, stir your nerves, rock your views, and motivate you to live each day as you see fit?
   
   If your answers are yes - then "How Can You Defend Those People" is a MUST READ! It's rare to find a book where readers are so moved by one man's life experiences! Mickey Sherman's accounts are so vividly cast and frankly depicted that they leave you yearning for more and wondering how all these interesting events could possibly have happened to one person! From Michael Skakel, OJ Simpson, Scott Peterson, Martha Stewart, the Menedez brothers ... to the quite unknown yet poignant story of Roger Ligon ... this book is well-written, exciting, and hysterically entertaining!



2. Mickey Sherman, a renowned defense attorney, defends his profession against the rash of stereotypes held by the general public, usually using a heavy does of his good -- and wacky -- sense of humor in the process.
   
   And, it's not just defending his profession. He looks at the practice of criminal law in general. This isn't a nuts-and-bolts, or a tell-all, just a description of how defense lawyers, judges, prosecutors and cops are all people -- and how those who are best people are usually the best in their line of work.
   
   Filled with great anecdotes from an attorney who truly doesn't take himself too seriously, Mickey Sherman explains not only how he can defend "those guys," but, how you should be glad people like him defend "those guys."



3. I've often asked myself "how can that lawyer defend that person". I guess sometimes I still wonder, but in our wonderful country every person has the right to be represented/defended in court. Sort of reminds me of hate the sin but love the sinner . . Can't love the sinner, but can accept the fact that he has the right to good legal counsel.



4. This book should be mandatory reading for criminal defense attorneys. It gets your head, your heart, and your ego in the right place. A light, quick and engaging read, it will crack you up again and again at the same time as imparting much insight. And then there's the chapter on the Roger Ligon case, the prep and trial of which is a model of unstinting hard work, commitment and brilliance by attorney Sherman. And it's cheap, you should buy a bunch of copies so you can hand them out the next time someone asks, "How can you defend those people?!"



5. A great book by a great attorney and even better human being. He tells it like it is but doesn't forget to make you laugh. You've got to read this book!

5 comments about Happy Hour Is for Amateurs: A Lost Decade in the World's Worst Profession.

1. I suspect that I have never met the anonymous "Philadelphia Lawyer," who authored this episodic memoir. (As he is anonymous, of course, I can't be sure.) What I am sure of after reading this book, however, is that if I ever did meet him, I would certainly not like the man. I have known too many thirty-somethings that cling to their immaturity as a virtual badge of honor, feel the need to let everyone know the detials of their sexual exploits and drug use, and seem to have a sarcastic disdain for anyone they feel might be smarter than them. Therefore, I don't think I'd like this "Philadelphia Lawyer" much at all.
   
   From his book, I was expecting a 'tell all' account - a behind the scenes 'expose' - of the tumultuous professions of defense and corporate law. What I got instead was a few chapters about that interpsersed with the more numerous and obnoxious tales of the authors drug and sex life and sardonic comments about his wild and crazy life. We find out about the time he broke into his former frat house as a prank, about the time he took home the intern in an act of desperation, about the time a hotel room in his name got trashed on an out-of-control night, and (from time to time) about how practicing law is hard work - the type the Philadelphia Lawyer is obviously ill-equipped for.
   
   It is hard to say that there is much continuity in this book. While all the episodic stories in this book seem to be sequential, that is only an inference. Each chapter seems to be its own story, and the book could just as easily be read out of order. There is no 'flow' in this book, and after a while, books with no flow lead me to ask: why was this book written?
   
   I asked that a lot when reading this. The author is not at all a likeable person, and has an endless array of put-downs for everyone he comes across (this was funny and endearinf for a few chapters, but is not enough to sustain a whole book.) Admittedly, the author is a good writer in the sense that he describes events well, and a few chapters are quite engrossing (generally the ones, few and far between, where the author does not devote large tangents bragging about sexual or drug exploits). Were it not for these occasional high-points, I would have thought this book was written for therapeutic reasons only; it is that pointless and only slightly more entertaining.
   
   I gave it two stars because there were some chapters scattered throughout where I did not once have the urge to skip ahead and try my luck with a new chapter. Were the book only to consist of those chapters, I might have given the book four star as, like I wrote, the author IS a decent writer. Unfortunately, the book added 200 more pages and, hence, garnered a two-star review.
   
   Lastly, I must warn readers that if they are expecting any type of linear behind-the-scenes book about the practice of law, they should look elsewhere. This is not that book. This is the book for readers who have always wanted to read the biography of a thirty-something Ferris Beuler.



2. Fear and loathing in law school. The writing is wild, with hints of Lester Bangs and Bukowski. The book is hysterical from front to back but also unflinching, a ridiculous view of a very misguided life righted, I hope, along the way (I can't say more without giving anything away). From his days in law school in Philadelphia to wretched days in firm after firm, you feel like you are there, with him. The only difficulty with it is the writer seems to apply a journalistic eye to the material, almost like he's watching his own life. If you need an emotional connection and wrenching internal upheaval, you don't get it here. What you do get, however, is really funny, and written in wicked prose. I wouldn't give the storyline five stars, but the sheer hysterical delivery of the high points (and I was only reading an advance copy) earns that, and a little more.



3. I was given an advanced copy of this book today by a friend without knowing what it was about nor the author's name. Turns out this was for the best after reading some of the reviews.
   
   I love this book. I love it for the same reasons I love Bukowski. The same reasons I love Sedaris. This is a flawed man who sees things in a way I can only get mere glimpses of. These are stories that I would never want to live but relish knowing that someone has. Just like I have lived my own life, lived my own adventures, made my own mistakes and successes; the author let me into their world. I shared their failures and foibles, laughed with them and at them, and knew who they were at those points in time of their lives.
   
   I believe that was the whole point. There is no grand scheme, there is no grand finale, there is no denouement. There is just a sharing of experiences.
   
   Unfettered, raw, course, lovely and abrasive.
   
   Give me more.



4. This book would be perfect absent the explicit and raunchy details of the Authors pursuit of tail, self-centered sniveling, contrite reflections of personal shenanigans and sharp, seemingly hypocritical criticisms of others in the legal profession. Unfortunately we would be left with little more than a couple chapters were we to rectify the unnecessary, unsavory and sometimes offensive details. The book may still prove a positive experience for the reader should they find themselves readily able to assimilate the cocky arrogance and jock vernacular the book is so replete with. I found myself able to trudge through the book only by reminding myself that I too, was once a young testosterone driven man with little on his mind besides women, self-aggrandizement and one-upping my mates with stories of conquest.
   
   I do take into consideration that the author is simply not a likeable fellow and so I am carefully reviewing the book, the skill of the writer and the overall experience - not the main character. Like a book about an evil villain (or more appropriately by an evil villain) this work should be approached without an expectation that the main character will be easy to relate to or likeable. If the reader can accept that, then the book is tolerable. There is just too much raunchy and unnecessary detail - the book would have benefited from better creativity and careful prose. I also take into consideration that some may enjoy what they feel is frankness, or brutal honesty present in this anonymous work.



5. If this book were ever made into a movie, and Ian Drury & The Blockheads were still around to sing an adapted version of his "Sex and Drugs and Rock and Roll" song as the movie's soundtrack, it would go something like:
   
   Sex and drugs and blog and book deal bankroll
   Is all my brain and body need
   Sex and drugs and blog and book deal bankroll
   Are very good indeed
   Keep your silly civil law ways or throw them out the window
   The wisdom of your personal injury laws, I've been there and I know
   Lots of other ways to bill clients, what a jolly bad show
   If all you ever do is law business you don't like
   Sex and drugs and blog and book deal bankroll ...
   
   This book is the consolidated version of the author's Web site blog writings and recounts his drug-addled trip (literally and figuratively) through college and law practice, and his testosterone-fueled conquests of women. As such, the writing reads like a blog-ish collection of individual anecdotes, without the flow of a biography or having the pacing of a timeline-based memoir during his years in law school and later as a client-bill-o-matic trained to stack up the hours.
   
   The author and book remind me of a combination of the drug-induced haze of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas: A Savage Journey to the Heart of the American Dream , Charles Bukowski's crude, insulting, macho women-conquesting character Henry Chinaski in Women: A Novel , as well as a whole litany of "men behaving badly" movie characters: Jeff Lebowski in The Big Lebowski (Widescreen Collector's Edition) , Jeff Spicoli in Fast Times at Ridgemont High (Widescreen Special Edition) , the struggling washed-up actor, Jack, in Sideways (Widescreen Edition) , Cheech&Chong movies like Cheech and Chong's Up In Smoke (High-Larious Edition) , etc.
   
   What you ultimately think of this book may be influenced by: 1) what your initial expectations were of the book, 2) whether you found the constant references to drug use and both successful and unsuccessful sexual escapades with women funny or offensive, and, 3) especially for female readers, whether you are easily offended by the frequent sexual objectification of women (although I would not call him a misogynist, there is plenty of "men's locker room" language and crude bathroom graffiti humor been thrown about here).
   
   My initial expectations of the book were an exposé, of sorts, on the law profession as seen through the eyes of a lawyer. Obviously, with a sub-title like "A Lost Decade In the World's Worst Profession", I did not expect this to be the memoirs of a happy lawyer who felt that he was making the world a better place by practicing his trade.
   
   On the cover of the book, Tucker Max, who wrote a funnier and more outrageous book and who helped the author set up his PhilaLawyer.net Web site blog, is quoted: "I was fired from my first legal job within a month, and this book explains why it was the best thing to ever happen to me", and the book's back cover describes it as a "hallucinogenic send-up of the legal profession ... this is his outrageous, juvenile, raucous, and entertaining story". The book was indeed "juvenile", "raucous", and "entertaining", but I did not really consider it "outrageous". Not being a lawyer myself, I was still not the least bit surprised when I read his description of his law office holding meetings on how to maximize the billing of hours to clients; in many ways, that is no different than salespeople have sales quotas and some police departments around the world have explicit or implied traffic ticket quotas.
   
   The descriptions of the bar-hopping and bed-hopping and the rampant use of alcohol, drugs, hallucinogens, and nitrous oxide happen in many work environments. When you lose yourself frequently to mind-altering chemicals, a book could also be written called "A Lost Decade In The Accounting Department", "A Lost Decade Behind The Fast Food Counter", "A Lost Decade Of Drunk And Stoned Bullfighting In Spain", or "A Lost Decade In The World's Oldest Profession". I know a guy who works in a bicycle shop surrounded by stoners, and when I was in college, I drove a university shuttle bus alongside other bus drivers who smoked joints during their 15-minute pit stop breaks. Nearly every profession has its share of insanity that defies logic; that is what makes the humor in Dilbert and the "Office Space" movie resonate so well with everyone. And I have known many burnt and burned-out workers, including a lawyer who became a sculptor artist, a nurse who became a teacher, and a software engineer who became a paramedic.
   
   But I was hoping for more anecdotes on the author's experiences with the legal profession mixed in with all of his experiences with drugs and women, and thus the 4-star rating. An entire chapter spent recounting the time when his wife, with small breast implants, went car-surfing, fell from a tree, and got groped, fondled, and kissed by another woman was hilarious. But it represents the voyeuristic peep-show feeling that the entire book has, and it has a (probably intentional) non-blaming and non-accusatory tone to it. The author is not out to burn bridges or muckrake, and I found nothing really scathing in his comments about the profession (certainly no worse than already-publicized scandals about lawyers, politicians, teachers, etc). This is not a heavy-handed treatment of a subject matter, but just his admittedly subjective opinion of how he did not fit in with the system. After I finished reading this book, I just happened to put it on my bookshelf right next to Jeannette Walls' The Glass Castle: A Memoir book, thought momentarily about the surreal absurdity that was in both books, and noticed that unlike Jeannette whose childhood destiny was guided by some nutty parents, this author chose to get high, chose to try out criminal law, and then chose to try civil law and personal injury law before realizing that it was not his cup of tea. We all have had our share of making false starts and wrong turns in life.

5 comments about The Supreme Court: The Personalities and Rivalries That Defined America.

1. It's one of the fundamental principles of the U.S. Constitution that the three branches of government are more-or-less equal, with checks and balances assuring that no branch takes over. The reality, of course, is different: at times - particularly in the 1800s - the Congress was the more powerful branch, while at other times -especially recently - the Presidency has taken the reins. The judicial branch, however, has always been in third place; although it makes a difference at times, it rarely is more visible than its "coequals". Nonetheless, there are times that the judicial branch - and in particular, the Supreme Court - has assumed a critical role in history.
   
   Jeffrey Rosen's The Supreme Court is not so much a history of the institution as a study as to how certain personalities affected the Court. He focuses on four such rivalries that dictated not only the direction of the Court but also the direction of the country. The first rivalry (and the only one featuring a non-Court figure) is Thomas Jefferson and John Marshall. These two embodies the two principal political philosophies of the early United States: Republicanism and Federalism. Unlike previous Chief Justices, Marshall really defined the Court and made it an important part of the government, most notably with the Marbury v. Madison decision. Since Marshall differed with Jefferson on many issues, this set the two branches at odds with one another.
   
   The next rivalry is John Marshall Harlan and Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., a pairing that is probably the most obscure to the modern reader. Holmes, with his nickname "The Great Dissenter" earned a reputation based on his dissents in some free speech cases, but often had much less sympathetic rulings, such as his opposition to civil rights and his support of eugenics. Harlan, on the other hand, was more forward-thinking, and notably dissented on Plessy v. Ferguson, the Court decision that - after Dred Scott - is probably the darkest mark on the institution's history.
   
   The third section deals with Hugo Black and William Douglas. Unlike the previous pairings, these two were politically of a similar bent, but they still had different judicial philosophies, with Black being the sounder reasoner and Douglas being somewhat more free-wheeling. Douglas's presidential ambitions, which never really amounted to much, also affected his decision-making. Similarly, the fourth section deals with two Justices with similar politics yet different philosophies: William Rehnquist and Antonin Scalia. While Rehnquist would often try for consensus, Scalia is more absolute in his beliefs and doesn't really seem to care who he rankles.
   
   In each pairing, Rosen casts one person as hero (Marshall, Harlan, Black and Rehnquist) and one as villain (Jefferson, Holmes, Douglas and Scalia). Of course, things are not really that simple and Rosen recognizes flaws in the heroes and virtues in the villains; perhaps it is better not to use the heroes-and-villains analogy at all, but it is clear Rosen favors one in each rivalry. This has less to do with politics than with technique: Rosen favors Justices who can promote harmony within the Court and can create rulings with real potency to them. Rulings that go 5-4 are not nearly as strong as those decided unanimously, and are more likely to be eventually reversed.
   
   In the final section, Rosen offers an early analysis of new Chief Justice John Roberts, one that is generally positive. Roberts, Rosen believes, seems to have learned from the better Chief Justices (a group in which Rosen would include Marshall, Warren and Rehnquist) as to how to run the Supreme Court. Rosen's writing is insightful, clear and reasonably objective (in the sense that he doesn't seem to favor either the political right or left). This book is a good, alternative way at looking at the history and structure of the Supreme Court.



2. For a look into some of the most well known figures in the Supreme Court, this book does a fantastic job. From in-depth analysis of their personalities to little anecdotes on each Justice, the Author clearly knows his history.
   
   It's a tad short, and I think the specific cases could have been covered in greater detail. While it was informative, it didn't have that something special that had me anxious to keep reading. At times, I felt like I was reading a history book.
   
   If you're someone looking to get some background into the Supreme Court and some of the characters that shaped it, this is a good book to start with. You may not feel completely entertained, but you will feel smarter after reading this book.



3. Jeffrey Rosen's accessible and engaging companion book to the PBS series offers not only a fine introduction to the U.S. Supreme Court (and many of the most important cases it's decided in its history) but also a perspective from which to understand the Court as an institution. This perspective is tantamount to Rosen's thesis: that "judicial temperament" is a quality possessed by the Court's most distinguished justices, those who subordinate their ideological leanings to the deliberative and practical process of establishing legal consensus.
   
   Rosen illustrates his thesis with four case studies: Marshall and Jefferson (not a justice); Harlan and Holmes; Black and Douglas; Rehnquist and Scalia. In each case one justice is seen as embracing judicial temperament while the other (or Jefferson, in the first chapter) is cast as something of an ideological maverick, a flamboyant but ultimately less influential constitutional thinker. Like one reviewer here, I found the questions raised by such pairings to be productive rather than reductive: Rosen is making a legal-historical argument here, and so reading his history of the Supreme Court is necessarily an exercise in critical interpretation.
   
   The chapters on the twentieth-century Court are excellent, with Rosen showing how the liberal-leaning Hugo Black and the conservative-leaning William Rehnquist had more in common with each other (in terms of judicial temperament) than with their respective colleagues: William O. Douglas and Antonin Scalia. Here Rosen parses the legacies of Black and Rehnquist by showing how their restrained judicial character helped them produce well-crafted decisions that advanced the Court's legitimacy in the public eye.
   
   Douglas and Scalia, on the other hand, were/are so committed to the purity of their ideological beliefs that, whatever one thinks of their individual decisions (and I am decidedly aligned with Douglas over Scalia in this regard), one has to come to terms with the fact that their jurisprudence will not have a lasting influence on the law of the land. Douglas and Scalia are seen as larger-than-life personalities, self-aggrandizing justices who rarely spoke for the Court as such.
   
   Again, you might agree or disagree with the specifics of Rosen's argument and framing of his historical examples. But the survey presented here is a solid, general introduction to Supreme Court history. And with judicial temperament Rosen gives us a lens through which we might view that history, and understand better exactly how the Court works.



4. Recently there have been many good books available about the Supreme Court. For a quick, no-nonsense straight to the heart of the matter history of Supreme Court, this is the book. A history of the Supreme Court derived from its major decisions and its major dissenters. The author shows that often justices that may be on the dissenting side of Supreme Court decisions are sometimes justices that are ahead of their time. Their lonely decisions often become basics to the American way of life in a later era. The Author, Jeff Rosen also relays a life's lesson to Supreme Court Justices, that in the interplay between majority vs. dissenters decisions, no matter how dedicated, wise, or oracle-like a justice appears, history bears out that the justices that "play ball", fraternizes, cajoles, and displays a good nature seem to win out. In other words the Law is not just the Law, the decisions cannot be divorced from the political impetus that brought them to the court and the most successful Justices are the most political Justices. Nothing underscores this more than the chapter on Justice Holmes and Justice Harlan. Justice Holmes was an ivory tower type justice and his reputation is somewhat revered today. Justice Harlan is lesser known, but the track record shows that modern American life revolves around decisions he made and that Holmes has been surpassed in almost all his major decisions.
   A very rewarding book, that will make the reader feel that in one book you can gain an understanding of what make the supreme court tick, and some of the twists ands turns it has taken in its history



5. I found this account of the Supreme Court far less engaging than "The Nine". Rosen's main point - that judicial temperament determines success on the court, in the sense that justices who work well with others have more influence - hardly qualifies as an earth-shattering insight. But it causes him to adopt an awkward structure for the book, sorting through history to pick pairs of judges, who are then analyzed in a series of artificial head-to-head comparison. The result seems forced, and not particularly illuminating.
   
   Rosen may have thought it a coup when he scored the in-depth interview with the new Chief Justice Roberts that rounds out the book. But it's basically a string of banalities, wherein Rosen seems like nothing more than a mouthpiece for Roberts's insubstantial, Pollyanna-ish platitudes. The effect is to undermine any credibility Rosen might have built up in the preceding chapters.
   
   But how much respect does this kind of writing really deserve, anyway?
   
   "If the pairings of judicial temperaments in this book suggest anything, it is that courting attention and partisan approval in the short term is no guarantee of judicial respect in the long term. In each of the pairings, there have been consistent tropes. The brilliant academic is less appealing over time than the collegial pragmatist. The self-centered loner is less effective than the convivial team player. The resentful braggarts wear less well than the secure justices who know who they are. The narcissist wields judicial power less sure-handedly than the judge who shows personal as well as judicial humility. The loose cannons shoot themselves in the foot, while those who know when to hold their tongues appear more judicious. (On the court, a justice often achieves more by saying less.) The ideological purists are marginalized, while those who understand when not to take each principle to its logical extreme are vindicated by history. Those who view cases in purely philosophical terms are less sure-footed than those who are aware of the cases' practical effects. Those with the common touch win broader support than those who live entirely in abstractions".
   
   An author who indulges in eight consecutive repetitions of the same point (i) needs a better editor and (ii) must not have a very high opinion of his readers. This book was not terrible, but it wasn't very good either.

3 comments about Campaign Boot Camp: Basic Training for Future Leaders.

1. Step aside, Colbert - Christine Pelosi has a real strategy for running for office, and anyone, she says, can do it. I listened to Pelosi on the radio the other day and she was so exciting, I checked out her book the same afternoon. She makes practical and worthwhile suggestions for being politically active - and her advice is valuable for anyone. I'm just a copy editor but I feel like even Clinton's senior staffers could learn a thing or three from "Campaign Boot Camp."



2. Look here! Christine Pelosi is someone who has been getting dirt under her fingernails in grassroots politics since she was in the stroller. "Boot Camp" is not the result of just another pundit or academic writing about politics. Christine really gives you both the promise and blessings of fighting for something you believe in while she also tells the truth about the planning and hard work it takes to succeed. She should know because there are at least three generations of Pelosi's who have risen to the top of the political ladder -- a grandfather who was mayor of Baltimore, a mother who is Speaker of the U.S. House, and herself as a 10-year elected veteran of the Democratic National Committee from California. Practical is what the Pelosis know and live; commitment to cause is what fuels them.
   
   Anyone who wants to win an issue or office should put this on their early reading list.



3. Christine Pelosi has written a primer on How To Run. (Also, on how NOT to run, when that's the right thing to do.) She's got the background and experience to know the lessons of how to go about running for office, the first-hand experience of training people to do it, and a wealth of voices who back up her practical advice with their first-hand stories of why they ran and what they learned. Practical. Solid. Essential for the first-time campaigner, the twenty-year incumbent, the journalist, and the woman on the street who wants to get an understanding of How It All Works.

1 comments about Convictions: A Prosecutor's Battles Against Mafia Killers, Drug Kingpins, and Enron Thieves.

1. "Unputdownable" is an adjective normally used to describe potboilers, not non-fiction books written by attorneys about their cases. Yet once you start reading Convictions, by John Kroger, it's impossible to put it down. With intelligence, insight, candor and a healthy dose of self-criticism, the former assistant US Attorney tells stories of chasing mobsters, fighting (and losing) the "war on drugs," and the arduous task of representing the US government in court. Kroger is the rare thing: an outstanding lawyer who writes like a novelist and thinks like a philosopher. This is a remarkable book; don't miss the chance to read it.

5 comments about The Revolt of the Cockroach People.

1. After reading this book, and actually living through those turbulent times of the 60's and 70' s , it was refreshing to read and feel the burning frustration and love that this man was experiencing and the way he expressed his anger against the machine. This type of awareness has been lost , due to us the forefathers of the Chicano Movement, to teach our own and other's children of how important those actions were, so that we may emphasize education, political power and family values. We have implemented a course in Chicano Studies in schools, we now have political representation in our governments, and many more success stories that are due to the work of such people as Cesar Chavez, Ruben Salazar and Corky Gonzales. Oscar Zeta was a man amongst his own that was afraid of nothing and no one.My thanks to him for fighting the powers that be and for creating an example for all of us, regardless of race. You have to stand up for what you believe and Acosta is atrue testament to that.



2. I read this book after finding out that Oscar Zeta Acosta was the fat Samoan lawyer from "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas." Acosta's style is similar, with a lot of drugs and sex with minors. The differences are that Acosta isn't tripping the whole time and he has time to incite political rallies. I love when they protest the Catholic church, or when he pleasures himself with some nubile young high schoolers under a blanket during a sit-in.... For those interested in the turbulent times that was the 60s, this is a must-read.



3. This is the most realistic book I have ever seen about Mexican American hippies in Aztlan, the Chicanos of the 1960's neo-freedom movements. It will surely become a collector's item worth saving in this era of gung-ho Americanism which does not know the kind of objectivity Acosta displays with regard to how we think and why we believe as we do. Hunter S. Thompson described the author better than I can in his introduction to the book, highlighting his uniqueness while lamenting his untimely passing. I will write more after I give the book a more thorough second reading.



4. Re-Saturday Review of Literature
   Oscar Acosta disappeared in Mexico in 1974, not 1971 (the year of his trip to Las Vegas with Dr. Thompson).



5. Re-Saturday Review of Literature
   Oscar Acosta disappeared in Mexico in 1974, not 1971 (the year of his trip to Las Vegas with Dr. Thompson).

1 comments about Exporting American Dreams: Thurgood Marshall's African Journey.

1. Long before Senator Barack Obama was heralded as a man whose balance between African and American worlds would lead to substantive international change, Justice Thurgood Marshall was crafting a legacy of statesmanship, exacting jurisprudence, and diplomacy that matches the great works of any statesman and the human rights legacy of Martin Luther King. As this deeply researched, clearly phrased, and elegantly written book makes known, Justice Marshall's intervention into Kenyan nation-building was always based on a hope that the law and governmental support could provide a system durable enough for both liberty, equality, and efficient organization of people with sometimes divergent views. What I admire most about Justice Marshall is that his work speaks for itself and, despite his human rights advocacy, he never politicized his arguments. They were based on the best kind of legal reasoning possible. This book made me aware of how much the work of the founders of Kenyan and the architects who transformed South Africa from the worse kind of white supremacist state into a flawed state that still reversed bigoted ills through the Truth Commission--this book made me aware that this kind of judicial conflict resolution and nation-building is not often continued in international relations.

5 comments about John Marshall: Definer of a Nation.

1. I think it can be argued that, next to Washington, Marshall was the most significant of the whole colonial group, and fortunately, this excellent biography rises to the occasion, telling the story of this truly remarkable American. The best proof of my enthusiasm for the book is that I have already purchased four copies for friends with more undoubtedly to come



2. .....though we can still debate whether he defined it correctly. John Marshall, fourth Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was, and remains, one of the absolute giants of our history. Washington fought the battles, Jefferson and Madison composed the theories, but it remained for Marshall to elucidate what it all meant. This is, to my mind, the definitive biography of a titan.
   
   John Marshall was born in what is now Northern Virginia in 1755, the child of a fairly well off family. On his mother's side, he was descended from the famous Randolphs; his father was a surveying associate of George Washington. His dad taught him a love of education and good books that continued all his days. Before embarking on a career in Law, Marshall was a soldier of the Revolution, serving with Washington in several major battles. After marriage to young Polly Ambler, he was a law student of the great George Wythe [also the law teacher of Jefferson, and of Spencer Roane] at William & Mary. Successful practice, and politics, soon followed...Marshall served on the Governor's Council, and was the leading advocate for Constitutional ratification in the Virginia convention; his battles with Patrick Henry are the stuff of legend [though they served as co-counsel in several cases]. He was a constant supporter of Washington, served as one of Adams' three ministers to France in the XYZ affair, and was briefly a Congressman and Secretary of State. He it was who said of Washington "First in War...", though he let Light Horse Harry Lee speak the words, and get the credit. In 1801, John Adams made a "midnight appointment" of Marshall to be Chief Justice, preventing the incoming President Jefferson from making his own choice...
   
   For the next 34 years, Marshall solidified Federal power, freely interpreting the interstate commerce clause, and the clause which allows Congress to make enabling legislation. Marbury v. Madison asserted the right of judicial review, and further cases expanded it. He wrote the judicial opinions that remain the basis of Federal centrilization of power to this day. Smith gives great detail of individual cases.
   
   One of Marshall's great strengths, and we shouldn't make light of it, was that he was a nice guy. A sociable host, his friends loved him, but even total strangers could find him thoroughly modest and charming. Quoits, and good Madiera were real passions. Even his enemies [with two profound exceptions] liked him. His basic decency certainly aided his consensus building.....
   
   ...the two exceptions were Spencer Roane and Thomas Jefferson. Roane was the son-in-law and political ally of Patrick Henry. A long time neighbor of Marshall, and Chief Justice of the Virginia Supreme Court, Judge Roane believed completely in States Rights and held the US Constitution to be a voluntary compact of free and independent states that could be broken at will. What Spencer Roane proposed, Jeff Davis disposed... Alas, where Marshall was a prince among men, Judge Roane was of such acid, unpleasant, temperment that even his friends and allies couldn't stand him...
   
   ....and then there was Mr. Jefferson. The feud between Marshall and Jefferson is one of the absolute central themes of American history. It was multidimensional...personal, familial, political, philosophical...for about 40 years, the conflict was one of cordial, respectful, dislike; after the Aaron Burr treason trial of 1807, it turned into blind, unreasoning hatred. Part of it was rivalry between branches of the Randolph family; part was Jefferson's civilian service during the revolution while Marshall was in the field; part was publication of a letter to Jefferson from his daughter stating "Mrs. Marshall is insane" [sadly, true]. Mostly, the problem was that Marshall and Jefferson had totally different theories of government and visions of America. [They agreed about religion, though Marshall was a founder of, and regular attender at, Monumental Church in Richmond]. In 1807, Aaron Burr was charged with treason, accused of wanting to set up his own empire. He was tried in Richmond, with Marshall sitting as trial judge. Marshall's friend, neighbor, and occasional law partner John Wickham served as defense counsel, along with the drunken genius, Luther Martin. In what is today generally considered a rigged trial, Burr was acquitted. During this trial, an incident occured that is the only evidence of improper conduct on John Marshall's part that I can find; while Burr was out on bail, Wickham threw a grand dinner party for him. Marshall was invited [not improper], went, and stayed the whole evening. You can well imagine the spin that sympathetic Jefferson biographers put on this; Smith doesn't mention it.
   
   John Marshall was a great and brilliant man; he was also a good and decent man. He had his problems; Polly was an invalid with a combination of physical and mental problems for years...one of his sons was essentially worthless. Thru it all, John Marshall was faithful to both his public and private duties. Now, I'll get personal....my copy of this wonderful book was a Christmas present my wife bought me at the John Marshall House in Richmond. Located at 9th. and Marshall, near the Capitol, it is lovingly maintained by a fine staff of really nice people [the Director even helped me with research for a small biography I wrote of Spencer Roane]. The house, and Marshall's grave in Shockhoe Cemetery a few blocks away, are cared for as monuments to greatness, which they are. The house is nice, but not spectacular; Marshall was a modest, unassuming man [John Wickham's house, two blocks away, IS spectacular]. At the John Marshall House [yes, I contribute financially], and at his grave, I feel awe, intellectual interest, and profound respect; at Monticello, I feel reverence. Maybe I think Jefferson was right about the issues, but I can still look up to John Marshall. If you want to understand America, you need to read this book.
   
   This is the best available biography of Marshall, maybe the best ever. If all you want is case histories, read Hobson; if you want a highly technical biography, read Newmyer; if you want to understand the great cases, AND the great man who decided them, start right here. Newmyer and Hobson wrote fine books, but any intelligent person [not just specialists] can read this one.....



3. This was one of those books I knew I SHOULD read, but its heft put me off for months. When I finally did pick it up, I couldn't put it down.
   
   John Marshall doesn't have the cache or enduring fame that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, or many others have - and it's a shame. He formed the institution of the Supreme Court, and in so doing, shaped many of the ways our country (tenuous at the time, mind you) began its journey, and perhaps why we've endured this long.
   
   The author does a fantastic job of painting a picture of life in the day, John Marshall's life and contributions, and how he and others in his era related to each other and the world at large. The cases that came before the early SCourt were fascinating, if only to illustrate the thorny issues and perils of the time. The extent to which he was able to be brilliant, rationale, and to build consensus focused on the original intent and vision for this country is impressive, and sorely needed today.
   
   Funny story - I finally DID start reading this book on the beach in Mexico. Not quite the fluff one typically carries to the beach. The first day, people remarked as such, and by about day 3 or 4, they are saying "wow, you are really making progress on that!" as the bookmark moved steadily towards the back.
   
   Don't wait for the beach - get started!



4. Not all historians are fine, interesting writers. Fortunately, Jean Edward Smith is a superb writer, making Chief Justice Marshall's long life an interesting, even fun, read. Moreover, the writing paralells the substance contained in the Book. I wish all historical biographies were of this quality. Buy the Book.



5. This is a full-length, 500 page biography of the fourth Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Marshall. It is superb. It is very detailed, yet easy to read. Smith follows the conventional chronological format for a biography, starting with Marshall's birth, and then describing his life sequentially from his childhood, his education, his youthful service as a light infantry officer in the Revolution, his work as a lawyer, his early political career, his rise to national fame as an envoy to France during the time when the nation almost went to war with France during the Adams Administration, his service as Secretary of State to John Adams and finally his long service for 35 years as the Chief Justice who established the power and prestige of the Supreme Court.
   
   What I find most admirable about this book is its balance. It gives you everything that you want in a biography. It is very scholarly, and very readable. It gives you a very good sense of John Marshall, the human being, but it also fully explains the significance of the events in which Marshall participated. As an example of the human side of Marshall, Smith gives us a very moving picture of Marshall's lifelong love affair with his wife, Polly, starting with the dramatic courtship by the penniless young officer and ending with the 80 year old Chief Justice walking twice a week to visit her grave. As an example of how Smith explains the significance of what Marshall did, not only did Smith explain the key decisions, but he gives the facts on what impact they had. In the steamship case, for example, Smith both explains the legal and political issues and gives the economic statistics on what effect the decision had on trade.
   
   I highly recommend this book, both for the excellence of its writing and the importance of its subject matter. John Marshall is one of the most important people in American history. He was instrumentals in making real the balance of the Constitution envisioned by Madison and Hamilton in the Federalist Papers. He was critical in creating the pre-conditions needed for America to be a rich and prosperous nation, with great opportunity for the great majority. Marshall was also a wise and a good man, which shines through on every page of this book. The book is worth reading, finally, as a way to come to know such an extraordinary man.