No comments about Never Too Late: A Memoir.

No comments about Thomas D'Arcy McGee: Passion, Reason, and Politics, 1825-1857.

No comments about Boy Clinton.

No comments about Memoirs of the Court of Henry the Eighth: Volume 1.

No comments about Sugawara no Michizane and the Early Heian Court.

5 comments about Godfather of the Kremlin: the Life and Times of Boris Berezovsky.

1. Paul Klebnikov is a modern Russian hero. He was assasinated because he tried to show the world how corrupt Russia had become at the hands of the oligarchs. "The Decline of Russia in the Age of Gangster Capitalism" is well written and organized. It follows not only the "rise" of Berezovsky but also illustrates how the majority of the Duma (Russian Congress) was in fact acting on behalf of the gangsters or were in fact gangsters themselves holding seats in the house.
   It is a reavealing look into the saddest chapter of Russian history. A must read for anyone interested in politics or modern history. It is a shame and loss to us all that Paul was killed. Who knows what other truths he could have recovered had he lived. It is also a shame that in our modern age of information, only a few speak the truth - and if they speak to loudly they are silenced, as was Paul. May he rest in peace.
   If you enjoyed this book, Paul also did an interview called "Theft of the century: Privatization and the looting of Russia." If you google it, you will find it on the net.



2. Everybody should read this book - it helps to put the entire Litvinenko killing in perspective ; the dead Russian spy worked for Berezovsky - given Berezovsky long criminal history it would not be surprising at all that he was directly involved in murdering his own employee as part of his long ongoing campaign to overthrow the democratically elected president Putin and thereby illegally regain control of all of Russia's natural resources including in particular Russia's oil and gas wealth.



3. This book tells a powerful story that most Americans are, sadly, unfamiliar with. Mr. Klebnikov outlines in impressive detail the history of Russia during the very turbulent times of the 1990s. The development of gangster capitalism under the Yeltsin regime in an environment of political corruption was a tragic episode in Russian history and an example of an opportunity squandered. This book outlines the rise of the mafia in Russia in the post-glasnost time period and the links they had to the Chechens and to the political leaders of the time.
   
   While I sometimes became a bit lost in all the details and Russian names with which I was unfamiliar, the story came through well as Mr. Klebnikov built, step-by-step, a solid and well-documented case. This story is an important one for Americans who wish to better understand what happened during this time period and how it affected, and still affects, Russia. From political assassinations to presidential elections - the book tells a compelling and sadly disturbing story.
   
   Since I have several Russian friends, I felt I owed it to myself to become more familiar with recent Russian history. And this book did not let me down. I would recommend it to anyone who is interested in understanding Russia better and I suspect it will in time become a classic for the detailed description it provides of this time period in Russian history.
   
   Highly recommended!



4. I personally witnessed the outcomes of the corrupted rule of the culprits portrayed by late Paul Klebnikov.
   Many Russians believe that the truths revealed in this book were the cause of author's murder.



5. This is a great book by a good author with a fantastic approach to the subject at hand.Even with all the warnings about some of the things being to good to be true ( or bad for that matter) the reality has surface just by watching the news about Russia.I like the fact that the author was able to track all the corrupt corporations in countries like Great Britain,Switzerland and USA.The author mentions names,dates and places with accuracy.Also i enjoyed his explanations and the political and economic ramifications that the corruption in Russia has brought.It is very sad to see how Boris Yeltsin drove Russia to the ground while pretending to be a good president.The Book shows how Yeltsin is as guilty as anyone in Russia of its problems.He was just a mummified puppet with a stupid smile.Anyone with interest in recient history of Russia should read this book.

No comments about Roosevelt's Warrior: Harold L. Ickes and the New Deal.

5 comments about Escape from China : The Long Journey From Tiananmen to Freedom.

1. I was a strong supporter of the Tiananmen movement for freedom and democracy, and those leaders were once a time my heros and heroines. But now I began to question the truth of their statements. They were not respectable as they claimed, and they did something actually not decent during the movement. When the others were on hunger strike, some of them were eating in local restaurants using the donations from those poor students, which were intended to fund the movement. What they have done later in the US is also disappointing. During my years in Beijing University, I secretly contacted some classmates of the former leaders, who I believe are honest people. They gave a totally different description of the deeds of those former heros. The Communists did kill the students, but the roles of these leaders in this movement should be studied more carefully before I believe them. I highly respect those died at the Square for the freedom and democracy of China, but those leaders are not my heroes any more, and began to question their doings in the horrible summer of 1989.



2. First, a short response to the review "telling truth or not" by "a reader". Shortly after the June 4th massacre the Chinese government broadcasted on television a video (apparently taken by the secret police) mockingly claiming that "while the 'poor worms' were on hunger strike, the leading 'turmoil elements' were eating in local restaurants using the donations intended for the movement." Almost immediately after the broadcast a university student in Hong Kong (a student of Chinese Universtiy of HK, if I remember correctly), whose face also appeared on the video, came out and clarifed that the dinner took place AFTER the hunger struck (the hunger strike ended at 10:00p.m. May 16). He was a representative of the universtiy students from HK, and he invited the leaders for dinner and he paid the bill -- no money was used from donations. When the video was replayed in slow motion, one could see what they were eating and would appreciate that it was indeed a very, very simple meal.
   
   One may find that the way the officers conduct their business and the way the commoners response are somewhat beyond believe. I know that the author is genuinely telling the truth, for I was detained in China twice, once for a month and once for 3 days.
   
   I have read the original Chinese version of the book and also some background material about the author. Within three months after he arrived at US he was diagnosed to have final stage liver cancer. The auther immediately started writing his memoir in the hospital bed hoping that he would leave something valuable for his daughter Little Snow. Miraculously his cancer was gone when he finished writing his book!



3. This book provides a great view into the life of Zhang Boli, the Chinese culture, and the powerful hand of a sovereign God. Yes, the book contained explicit language; however, after visiting with Pastor Zhang Boli, I came to understand that the translating was done by a foreign writer who used lude American language. Pastor Boli, with his very limited English, was not able to read the final production so was unable to even identify the kind of language used in his story's English version. This is an exciting story that is even more awe-inspiring when one realizes that Zhang Boli is still alive and well, pointing many Chinese to Christ in America as well as abroad.



4. Just a simple response to Mrs. G's review. Firstly, I wanted to ask Mrs. G, Could you read Chinese to decide whether the English version is good or bad? I found the translation a lot better than the original Chinese version. That is, the original Chinese is even more vulgar in many contexts, and I appreciated the translator's job, with some British taste indeed. A translator can only do so much to improve on a text that was not brilliantly written to begin with. If the translator's English is not refined enough, then it should be the editor's job to edit and revise it. Since you think the English version is exciting, what flaws is there that made you blame the translator? Indeed, I am glad that the translator has beautifully REwritten some content in a way that is acceptable to the American readers, and that shows that the translator is actually a good English writer and also well learned in Chinese studies. Maybe it does not occur to Mrs. G that even a pastor can be biased. It's regrettable if Mr. Zhang, who has apparently converted many Chinese, still cannot acknowledge the translator's efforts and achievement.



5. The events in Tiananmen Square in June 1989 are one of the 20th century's defining moments. Chinese students took on their communist government & after a 2 week stand-off military forces used overwhelming force to brutally suppress the revolt.
   
   The government issued a warrant for the arrest of the leaders of the insurgence. Zhang Boli was one of the 21 most wanted & the only one not captured. This is his story of how he evades a ruthless nationwide manhunt to escape to freedom in the west.
   
   Zhang Boli comes across as a very brave & intelligent student & in writing this story he wants to not only tell the story of his escape but also of some of the great people who helped him along the way. Worth reading.

4 comments about Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media.

1. Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media is the essential companion book to the celebrated philosophical documentary film of the same name which was released in 1993.

   Noam Chomsky followers and all free thinkers who have seen the film (and those who have not) owe it to themselves to get a copy of this provocative book and discover the incredible depth and lucidity of Chomsky's thought and ideas which address the most important moral, ethical, political and social issues of our time.

   The book contains a complete transcript of the film, with 300 stills illustrating the text, as well as copious excerpts from Chomsky's writings, interviews and other sources. The side-bar rich format of the book is well designed in that it allows one to follow the sometimes fast pace of the documentary's narrative while providing well chosen excerpts from Chomsky's writings that enrich and elucidate the topics presented in the film.

   Like the film, this book will hold your attention, and you will find yourself returning again and again to explore the political life and times of the controversial author, linguist, and radical philosopher Noam Chomsky. I would highly recommend this book both to the seasoned reader of Chomsky's work and as a very approachable introduction for the first time reader to this authors intellectually potent thought.




2. This documentary is a reasonable exposition of Chomsky's views. For those unfamiliar with Chomsky's (and Edward Herman's) propaganda model, this film is highly recommended. Those already conversant with Chomsky will probably revel in the extension of his ideas to real Living Color (those who agree with him anyway). However, I have one complaint: the propaganda system is complicated, and the film seems to take a dive on the specifics instead of dealing with its essential details. The failure to explicate what exactly Chomsky means when he speaks of "thought control in a democratic society" allows the pejorative claim that his ideas are "conspiratorial" to seep into the argument. Tom Wolfe scoffingly impugns what he calls, "the cabal"- I doubt he's actually read Chomsky. Anyone who understands the propaganda model, even if they fervently deny its existence, realizes that it is not worthy of "conspiracy theory" derision. The film would have done well to debunk this myth.

   The other flaw as I see is the focus on Chomsky's background and personal life, which are superfluous to the film's main message and inconsistent with Chomsky's own feelings about celebrity.

   As you can imagine, the film is rather one-sided in favor of Chomsky's views. Once you've seen this, it's absolutely imperative to read "Necessary Illusions", "Manufacturing Consent", and even some of Chomsky's other books- "The Washington Connection" and "Rouge States" are recommended. Also of note is that Chomsky may be Godfather of media criticism, but others including Nancy Snow and Michael Parenti have written well on the subject.




3. "While the film has met with large-scale success throughout much of the world, it is as a book that Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media is most useful. A virtual transcript of the film, it also includes a range of other materials--extended extracts from Chomsky's writings, reviews of those writings, interviews and a variety of novelty items, from comic strips through to a set of "Philosopher all-Star" trading cards attached to the spine. Through these, the emphasis on Chomsky's personality with marks the film (and about which Chomsky himself was concerned) is diminished, and the result is a highly skimmable guide to Chomsky's political ideas, the controversies in which he has been embroiled, and the notoriously thorny question of the relationship between his political and linguistic ideas. It is, perhaps, too fragmentary and montage-like in its organization to serve as a course text, but as a distillation of one important current within Western radical thought it is extremely useful."

   Will Straw,
   Canadian Journal of Communication




4. This book is much more than a simple transcript of the documentary of the same name, it also offers a lot of information and excerpts from interviews with and writings by Noam Chomsky not included in the film. It is a very wonderfully put together book. This might be the best introduction to Chomsky's thought around. and the philosopher all star trading cards in the back of the book are a great idea. Plus, it really looks good on the coffee table.

5 comments about The MAN WHO ONCE WAS WHIZZER WHITE: A PORTRAIT OF JUSTICE BYRON R WHITE.

1. This book was a disappointment. I think that with the recent comprehensive late 20th Century biographies, such as the recent ones about Rockefeller and Lindbergh and Nigel Hamilton's Reckless Youth, we have come to expect the biographer to do a thorough investigation and analysis of the circumstances that impacted the subject. While I do not expect a Freudian approach in every case (and would probably object to it if done expressly), I welcome gentle suggestions that link early events in the subject's life with the later, more well known, events. This analysis was missing from Whizzer (with the exception of the origins of his hatred for the press). The book reads as if it is a collection of on-line newspapers searches, ones that I could have done myself if NEXIS had newspapers dating back to the 30s. Didn't anybody keep a diary? Didn't anybody write letters? Didn't anybody have any introspective thoughts? To those who say that this type of analysis is not necessary for a judicial biography, I direct them to John Jeffrey's book about Powell, which I thought was very well done, and a good model for what a judicial biography can be.



2. Hutchinson has written a fascinating contemporary biography of Justice White who is almost unique in his continued insistence on his privacy and personal dignity. Although the author eschews speculation as to White's family or personal life, one still gets a good sense of the man--his intelligence, tenacity, and just plain decency. At least as interesting are the times he lived in, and few lawyers or judges have shared the action and passion of their times more fully than Justice White--first on the gridiron, then in the classroom, in the world of affairs, and on the court. White had his shortcomings as a communicator and legal theorist, as Hutchinson aptly illustrates with the oral and written record. But would that our society had more such self-effacing, dedicated and excellent lawyers and public servants!



3. Byron White began his long judicial career in dissent, resisting the rising tide of criminal procedure liberalism of the Warren Court, and ended it as the balance wheel of Rehnquist Court. In his 31 years on the Supreme Court, from 1962 to 1993, he was in the majority in 807 five-to-four decisions, more than any other justice in history, except for the wily William Brennan who served on the court for 34 years. White also has the signal distinction of being the only Democratic appointee to the Supreme Court since the end of World War II who profoundly disappointed his erstwhile partisan allies. Beyond the fact that White refused to "grow" his jurisprudence from its New Deal origins to accommodate the latest cultural avant-garde enthusiasms of the juridical left, little is known about White and his jurisprudence is widely misunderstood.

   The litany of White's accomplishments and his early rise to the court serve to obscure the lines of his jurisprudence, which he never made an attempt to clarify. Hutchinson's principal accomplishment is to discern from the mass of White's opinions a sound jurisprudential framework obscured by bulk of White's output (1,275 opinions in 31 years), and in doing so refute the assertion that White was unpredictable.

   Although White was popularly described as a conservative jurist, this confounds the term as it is used to describe a specific interpretive philosophy with the judicial tradition which White came to exemplify. Today judicial conservatism is virtually synonymous with "original meaning," the method of constitutional interpretation that holds that the Constitution means only what it was understood to mean by those whose assent made it law. This has certain implications, among them that the Congress's powers are limited to those enumerated, that the three branches of federal government and their powers are strictly separated, and that the states retain inviolable spheres of sovereignty. In this sense, White was not a conservative at all. Where, say, Justice Antonin Scalia would subscribe to these general notions, White would not. For instance, while Scalia believes that the law permitting the appointment of Independent Counsels violates the separation of powers doctrine (Morrison v. Olson), White sees it as a permissible experimentation with the form of government. And though Scalia believes that the powers of Congress are, however tangentially, limited (Lopez v. United States) and that the states retain areas of discretion where the Congress may not intrude (Printz v. United States), White views the powers of the Congress as essentially unlimited (Katzenbach v. McClung) and the states as retaining no sovereignty that the Congress is obliged to respect (Garcia v. San Antonio Metro. Transit Authority). Although Hutchinson views "New Deal liberal" and "pragmatist" as imperfect labels, his carefully wrought and insightful analysis of White's jurisprudence nonetheless establishes that they are fair and roughly approximate descriptions of Justice White.

   In it's judicial aspect the New Deal generally sought to eliminate restrictions on the exercise of federal power. These breaks on government power were exemplified early in this century by an activist libertarian Supreme Court's invocation of natural rights and non-textual notions of substantive due process to strike economic regulation. Lochner v. New York, where the court struck down regulations on the working hours of bakers as a violation of their liberty to contract their labor, is perhaps the most famous bugbear of New Dealers. But restrictions also came in the form of the enumerated powers doctrine and in the form of early criminal procedure cases which, as Professor Akhil Reed Amar of Yale has noted, invoked natural law and private property rights, and thus restricted the government's policing powers. All of these, in one way or another, restricted federal action. Judges of New Deal era, then, had a distinctly negative ambition: To remove the restrictions on the exercise of federal power so that the Congress, acting with the Executive, could enact social reform.

   The ambition of liberal judges changed, of course, with the rise of "the real Warren Court," which historian David P. Currie of the University of Chicago dates to the replacement of Justice Frankfurter by Arthur Goldberg late in 1962. "Willful judges," as Justice Scalia describes them, were no longer content with deferring to the overtly political branches, but were now eager to enact social reform themselves. The criminal procedure cases of the Warren Court were animated by the ideas that policing by the states was institutionally racist and that crime was a manifestation of disease, not evil, and should be addressed as a public health concern. Steeped in the New Deal idea of the judicial function, however, White largely dissented from Warren Court's innovations. He dissented from Miranda v Arizona, which mandated the now famous warnings to criminal suspects; prefiguring contemporary arguments, he wrote "there will not be a gain, but a loss, in human dignity" because under Miranda some criminals will be returned to the street to repeat their crimes.. White would also labor to limit the scope of rule excluding from trial illegally obtained evidence, and would dissent from Robinson v. California, where the court struck down a California statute criminalizing narcotics addiction. The court said that the state could not punish a person's "status" as an addict, only his conduct; White, sensibly enough, pointed out that addiction accrues through continuous willful behavior.

   White was a pragmatist. He didn't believe that the provisions of the Bill of Rights had a "single meaning" or that constitutional provisions could be measured like the provisions of a deed, in "metes and bounds," but he was insistent that constitutional innovations be small and slow, and linked in a rational process. His father taught him that "You can't just stand on your rights all the time in a small town," and White had a lifetime aversion to "the angels of fashionable opinion," as Hutchinson memorably calls ideologues of various stripe. But White's contempt for philosophy could lead him astray. In Reitman v. Mulkey, White wrote the opinion of the court holding that California could not repeal a fair housing law because the repeal was motivated by animus toward minorities. In time, the case was precedent for the current Supreme Court's invalidation, in Romer v. Evans, of Colorado's attempt to deny homosexuals privileged legal status, and for a lower federal court to stay the implementation of California's Proposition 209, barring racial and sexual discrimination in state services. Pragmatism unguided by a philosophy lead White to judgments the long-term ill consequences of which he was not equipped to foresee.

   However, White's small-step pragmatism and disdain for ideological enthusiasms kept him from joining most of the Warren and Burger Court's radical social agenda. Although he was willing to recognize, in Griswold v. Connecticut, a non-textual right to privacy permitting married couples access to contraception and even was willing to extend the right to non-married couples in Eisenstadt v. Baird, White famously and vigorously dissented from Roe v. Wade, privately telling people that he thought it was the only illegitimate decision the court made during his tenure. Perhaps just as upsetting to the votaries of judicial activism was White's majority opinion in Bowers v. Hardwick, which held that Georgia could constitutionally prohibit homosexual sodomy. White briskly dismissed the argument that homosexual activity was constitutionally protected: "[T]o claim that a right to engage in such conduct is `deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition' or `implicit in the concept of ordered liberty' is, at best, facetious."

   In an sense, White was precisely the type of conservative -- one who slows progress, but does not reverse it; one who ratifies the past, whatever its content -- that liberals claim they want. Except for Roe, White would later vote to reaffirm precedent, on the basis of stare decisis, with which he had earlier disagreed. And yet, few modern justices -- except, perhaps, Justice Clarence Thomas -- have been the object of so much vitriol as White. When White retired in 1993, Jeffrey Rosen of the New Republic called White "a perfect cipher" and a "mediocrity," Bruce Ackerman of Yale said he was "out of his depth," and the New York Times' Tom Wicker called him the "bitterest legacy of the Kennedy Administration." The best Calvin Trillin, writing in The Nation, could say of White was "We count his loyalty to team a boon/The other side might well select a loon" -- this in backhanded praise that White retired during a Democratic administration. These facile slurs betray the mercurial enthusiasms of the age more than they carefully trace the lineaments of Justice White's jurisprudence and are therefore more reflective of their authors than White's jurisprudence.

   In many ways White is entirely alien to today's culture, popular and lega




4. Byron White intentionally did not leave much of a paper trail, as a man distrustful of the press, which is why this book has nowhere near the depth of Jeffries' Powell biography. White may well be most vilified and castigated justice in his own time, a fact which Hutchinson recounts in great detail, because he frequently ruled against the interests of the intelligensia-- frivolous First Amendment rights claimed by the media, and, of course, homosexuals, in Bowers, which won him the most profane attacks of all, from gay rights activists imbued with more passion than respect for the deliberative function of the Courts.
   
   White, though he is accused of "moving right" over the course of his career, was in fact remarkably consistent. The problem was that he was guided by a considerably more complex set of principles than most justices, another fact which Hutchinson brings out quite well. He had an extremely uptight view of electoral politics, disliked formalism in all of its forms, was always against categorically forclosing judicial review, and absolutely despised substantive due process, especially Roe v. Wade. Yet White was an extraordinarily fair-minded and scrupled man. He was the only justice to object to the Court's attempt to retire the debilitated Justice William O. Douglas on its own accord, was an aritculate opponent of formalistic separation-of-powers and federalism doctrine, and frequently came out on the side of the downtrodden (see his role in Jacobson v. U.S.). History should view White more kindly than most of his contemporaries-- he was a man totally without an sort of a political agenda, the type of fair-minded and intelligent person so lacking from our Courts today.
   
   There are some faults here: Hutchinson's forays into Constitutional commentary in the text are very opaque and inappropriate for the book. This book is generally well-written and well-researched, but its appeal will generally be to hardcore watchers of the Warren, Burger, and early Rehnquist courts or fans of White himself-- evidently a small group, as this book is now nearly out of print.



5. I first read this biography when it was published in 1998; because I am working with a former White clerk on a matter, I recently took another look--it has held up very well. The author, Dennis J. Hutchinson, long affiliated with the University of Chicago and its law school, had the advantage of having clerked for White. But this is no hagiography, and is quite critical in spots. Because White (1917-2002) has become all but invisible to current generations of Court watchers, and this is the major biography available on him, it is an important book. One measure of the author's thoroughness is that White does not make it onto the Court until page 335 (he served between 1962 and 1993)--the previous pages are devoted to a meticulous account of his prior life, and what a life it was: football All-American; Rhodes Scholar; graduate work at Oxford; then onto Yale Law School while playing in the NFL; valuable work during the war in Naval Intelligence; then clerking on the Court; followed up with a successful law practice and politics in Denver, including work on the JFK campaign in 1960; a stint as Deputy Attorney General under RFK and then appointment to the Court.
   
   Hutchinson does not follow the frequent practice of reviewing every major decision a subject made while on the Court; rather the picks out three terms (1971, 1981, and 1991) for extended analysis. He looks at such topics as White's opinion style, including his dissent format; his incremental approach; the problems some had with White's opinion style; his interaction with fellow Justices; and his views on such topics as affirmative action, abortion and finding "new" constitutional rights. Always central to the discussion is White's independence, as manifested for example in being the only Justice against taking away (in effect) Justice Douglas's vote due to his incapacity. The author also speculates as to the forces that did and did not shape (such as Yale legal realism) White's view. White's reputation for being a difficult and distant individual to deal with certainly is borne out by the book, although White clerks will tell you he was great to work for. Whatever, White is a fading figure, and it falls largely to this fine biography to keep his memory and accomplishments alive.