5 comments about Counselor: A Life at the Edge of History.

1. Counselor was very much what I expected., having heard a radio interview between Bob Edwards and the erudite Mr. Sorenson. Bordering on hero worship but honest and informative, this book confirmed what I always felt about JFK, that he was one of a kind and American politics has not and possibly may not see his ilk again.



2. Ted Sorensen's 2008 Convention Speech
   Tuesday, August 26, 2008 at 03:20 PM
   
   "In my more than 50 years of national conventions, this is one of the most important. Our 8 year national nightmare of mendacity, mediocrity and economic misery--with millions of Americans losing their jobs, their savings, their homes and their hopes--will soon end with the election of Barack Obama.
   
   I have long dreamed that our party would produce another president matching John F. Kennedy's intellect and integrity, his capacity to inspire justice at home and peace around the world--and this week my dream is coming true. Once in a lifetime, said the poet, hope and history meet in one extraordinary man and movement--I thank the good Lord that I've lived long enough to meet and help such men twice in my lifetime, John Kennedy and Barack Obama.
   
   Kennedy at 43 proved that age matters in the White House. His energy, appeal to other young world leaders, calm under pressure and openness to new thinking, well served our nation. Denounced as a candidate for lacking executive experience, he displayed sound judgment in leading a successful nationwide campaign, choosing a top-notch team, negotiating with difficult leaders, and out-organizing and out-th inking his adversaries--just as he would as president, particularly when, with prudence and courage, he induced the Soviets to withdraw their nuclear missiles from Cuba without the U.S. firing a shot; and the world gave thanks that the more experienced Richard Nixon had lost that close election.
   
   In 1960, Kennedy, like Obama today, facing a Republican tied to a failed past, looked to a future of new ideas and opportunities. As president, he did not send the Marine Corps to preserve America's oil supplies, he sent the Peace Corps to preserve America's global standing. Confronting a Soviet military advantage in space, he made all Americans proud by literally reaching for the moon.
   
   Today, we need new leadership. We have lost our way, lost the respect of our allies, lost the confidence of our investors and consumers. Are we to be the first generation of Americans to leave to our children a country in worse condition than we received it?
   
   In short: this year, my friends, the fates will try us; erase all trace of fear and bias; we have the man we need at last to embrace the future, not the past, and to dispel eight years of pain and shame. Barack Obama is his name! Call the roll!"



3. A fascinating look at a fascinating time from a unique perspective, Ted Sorenson. Sorenson's own words & voice inflections are preserved for future generations. Anyone interested in the Kennedy Presidential era should add this to their collection. A must!



4. Should fairly obscure and relatively little known people write autobiographies? Answers to this question will vary, of course, but if the person's name is Theodore C. Sorensen, my answer would be 'definitely'. Indeed, Sorensen is one of several persons I identified several years ago in a category I labelled "I hope he writes and I can read his life story". [In case anyone is interested, the other two were/are musicians: Frederick Fennell (1914-2004) and Mitch Miller (1911- ).]
   
   Ted Sorensen is one of those figures who essentially went from nowhere to become one of the closest aides to President John F. Kennedy. Readers of this memoir will be most interested in Sorensen's life between 1953 and Novemeber 22, 1963, during which he served as one of JFK's closest advisers ("Special Counsel" was his official title from 1961 to 1963) and his top speech writer.
   
   There are many ideas a reviewer of this book could comment on. I will mention a few that especially interested me.
   
   So, according to Sorensen, the following are accurate:
   -- JFK was the person who conceived and was the main writer of his famous "Profiles in Courage" book, though he did receive lots of assistance from Sorensen.
   --Kennedy "showed no courage" in avoiding voting on the censure of Senator Joe McCarthy during the 1950s.
   --JFK did err (in accepting assurance of success from CIA leaders) in the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, but he recovered, learned from his experience, and was brilliant during the Cuban Missile Crisis, especially in triumphing over his hawkish associates.
   --Kennedy took greater initiative in civil rights than any of the presidents before him.
   --We really don't know what JFK would have done with respect to US involvement in Vietnam.
   
   Here are a few additional revelations. Sorensen was responsible for the faux pas JFK made in his famous "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech in Berlin. The Kennedys and Lyndon Johnson really did not get along well, and JFK thought LBJ was just about useless as Vice President. There was much friction between Sorensen and JFK associates/advisers Ken O'Donnell and Richard Goodwin.
   
   Regarding the JFK assassination, Sorensen was, along with many of JFK's close associates, too shocked and numbed by his death to give much thought to the question of who did it. But over the decades Sorensen has come around to accepting what most of the American people have believed: more persons than Lee Oswald were involved in this unsolved and unpunished crime.
   
   The epilogue is extremely useful as a concise summary of Sorensen's view of JFK's strengths, weaknesses, triumphs, failures -- both personal and as a public figure. If one does not read all 530 pages of the book, at least read this epilogue.
   
   I believe the book justified my hopes expressed in the first paragraph of this review. The writing is superb, for the most part candid, and full of humor. If the 1950s and and 1960s interest you at all, this is a book to investigate.
   Tim Koerner
   August 2008



5. 
   I am an Irish Catholic, born six months prior to JFK's murder; the admiration for JFK as lost leader has been a backround to my life, and is deeply felt in my society. I have been thrilled on the speeches - `A man on the moon this decade' represents, for me, the it audacity, ambition and directness that I associate with the USA -so I am up for the whole Camelot ticket. I admire what Ted Kennedy has done for the Irish Peace process, and am willing to go along with the Obama endorsement. So I bought this book looking for an insight into JFK's character and the philosophy that backed it up. It gave me neither.
   What I had previous known about Ted Sorensen was limited, though I knew he played some part in writing the speeches. In fact it turns out that he was JFK's right hand man for most of the 1950's and special counsel to the President during the Kennedy presidency. However I must admit that when I started the book, I skipped straight to the second section which describes the time that Sorensen started to work with Kennedy, guiltily, I later returned to the first section for the sake of completeness. One of things that struck me about the narrative is Sorensen's complete sublimation of his personality to Kennedy his statement that his role in the speeches and in writing Profiles in Courage, were to express Kennedy's own thoughts, because he, Sorensen, had come to know them so well. I found this a bit creepy.
   Another source of guilt for me is the fact, mentioned in the Epilogue, that Sorensen is dictating this book ( to Obama's speechwriter, if I'm not mistaken) having had a stroke in 2001, leaving him with blurred vision, unable to read or write clearly. For a man who is so clearly well read, whose profession and interest centre around reading and writing, this must be devastating. Sorensen has shown remarkable fortitude to deal with this cruel blow.
   Despite the above, I didn't enjoy the book. I felt that the view of Kennedy was too deferential, only grudgingly admitting that JFK had any faults, acknowledging only those weaknesses which are now public knowledge - womanizing, the pressure on the New York Times to remove their Vietnam correspondent - " I know of no other instance where he made such a request to another newspaper". Sorensen tells how high-minded Kennedy was in pursuit of policy matters, even to the point of political disadvantage. This to me just did not seem realistic, I do think he showed great courage is tackling the Civil Rights issues associated with desegregating the Southern School system - however I also think its realistic to say that he came to this issue quite late. Even Lincoln came late to Emancipation. His handling of the Big of Pigs was hesitant, of the Missile Crisis was deft. So I think its ok to say that he learned on the job.
   At the same time as JFK is venerated, almost held in aspic, I felt a curious lack of human detail. What made him such a leader? There are flashes of his winning humour - to overcome rumours that his millionaire father was funding his campaign (which was true) JFK read out, at a press gathering, a (false) telegram from his father saying " don't buy one more vote than necessary, I'm damned if I'll pay for a landslide". But what attracted such a talented team, how did JFK overcome his relative youth, his privileged backround and administrative inexperience to become such a courageous leader? There really isn't much clue in this book, I'm afraid.
   Sorensen's own view of the team and his role in it is too rosy also. He seems to be surprised to find out that Ken O'Donnell, another Kennedy advisor ( Played by Kevin Costner in the movie Thirteen Days) disliked Sorensen intensely. Indeed Sorensen seems to have been unaware of personal animosity and tension within the Kennedy team at all. I think this is unbelievable, tensions among ambitious people under pressure is inevitable. It is incredible to me that Sorensen won't acknowledge its existence. He quotes a Boston Globe editorial (from 1977) which describes Sorensen as " never a well-loved man with his icy brilliance and his hard eye for competence". Why not own up to this? His contempt for President Johnson is just beneath the polite surface, he quotes Jackie's comments on the references to LBJ in Sorenesen's biography of Kennedy "You must know - as well or better than I - his [JFK's] steadily diminishing opinion of him[LBJ]...", the book would be better if we got more of this flesh and blood feel of what it was like to live through the interaction of these characters. There is, however, a classic anecdote which summarises Sorensens view of the contrast between JFK and LBJ - JFK's speech's would quote and reference all manner of classical sources, but when LBJ received a draught speech referencing a quote from Socrates, he crossed out the ancients name and replaced it with `my granddaddy', you can almost see Sorensens nose wrinkle.
   Sorensen practised law in New York after leaving government service, occasionally being drawn back into the political life, once tragically with Robert Kennedy, once, sourly, as a potential Carter appointee to the CIA. His candidateship ran into rough water in the Senate, and he was very bruised by fellow Demoncrats and abandoned by Carter. His stories about his international law practice left me a bit cold - He helps found the South Africa Feed Election (SAFE) fund to help South Africa get ready for its first election after Nelson Mandela's release. Anthony O'Reilly is the co-chair of SAFE and Sorensen tells of explaining the work of SAFE to Mandela while flying back to New York from O'Reilly's estate in the Bahamas, on O'Reilly's private plane. Anthony O'Reilly is one of Ireland's richest men, formerly CEO of Heinz, he is a media-magnate who has developed significant media businesses in the new South Africa.
   He mentions working to develop a pipeline in Panama in 1976, the agreement was worked out between General Torrijos, Panama's leader (unelected) at the time and the company's president Harold Bernstein. Sorensen takes some pride is stating that thirty years later he returned to renegotiate the deal between Torrijo's son, Martin, then President of Panama and Jay Bernstein, president of the company. I think the feel of the elite going about their business makes me quite uncomfortable.
   In truth there are many fine attributes to the book, Sorensens loyalty is evident, his eloquence is breathtaking, his advice on speechwriting and the US political process is acute. I think what I disappointed me most is the absence of a clear political philosophy. His loyalty to and admiration of Kennedy are commendable, his loathing of the current administration is palpable. He is very comfortable with a president who knows the limits of the feasible, even for a superpower. But I can't discern an overachieving philosophy that will guide those who wish to follow his hero's footsteps. Conservatives have fashioned a credible philosophy around Liberty - which justifies a belief in small government, looser regulation, lower taxation, it is also (at a stretch) used to justify the Iraq invasion. It is most exposed on issues of personal morality. Progressives (or Liberals or whatever) don't seem to me to have a comprehensive set of beliefs - presumably it could be fashioned around Equality - though US policy in regard to Healthcare, Infrastructure and International Co-operation definitely needs some work. I don't get that some this book.

5 comments about My Grandfather's Son: A Memoir.

1. On page 270 of the book Clarence Thomas replies to the hypocritical charges by Senators Kennedy, Biden, Heflin, Metzenbaum et al. Thomas' anguished open authentic declaration ranks with the pathos of Chief Seattle as his proud people were being herded into a reservation and the bold honesty of Vanzetti in his declaration to the judge who had sentenced him and his friend, Sacco, to be executed.
   
   This book speaks to those whom others have unjustly tried to humiliate; to those who were compelled to grow up with absent fathers; to those who have stared into the abyss of nihilism and found Faith; to those whose mothers suffer and suffered and labored to bring up their children without those who had fathered them; to those who became the real fathers of children when their physical fathers abandoned them.
   
   Daddy in this memoir is a portrait of a noble, just man of the greatest dignity and sacrificial love.
   
   As for myself this "Memoir" will be passed on to my children.
   Justice Thomas, thank you for your honesty, candor and authenticity in this memoir of a "hero not a victim."



2. Although I don't often read autobiographies, a dear friend gave me her copy of "My Grandfather's Son" and suggested that I would enjoy it. Though I am old enough to remember the general facts of Clarence Thomas's appointment to the bench, I never really had an interest in the politics or the man embroiled in them. However, his story is both interesting and educational.
   
   Clarence Thomas has a clear recollection of his tumultuous life from living in a shack near a swamp through college activism to political intrigues. He not only narrates the details of his own life; he realizes that his life is a whole. He illustrates the connections between incidents in his life with an understanding light. Though racism was a formative part of his life, he demonstrates the strength that comes from meeting the challenge. As politics continues to be more dominated by whining, I am thankful for the story of a man facing the challenge of integrity, failing, and learning to be a better man by incorporating the difficult lessons taught by life and by a loving grandfather.
   
   Reprinted with permission from http://naturalfamilylife.blogspot.com



3. An incredible story of regardless the present situation - keep your focus. Real goals are not going to be easy, rely on the facts, not your emotions or the misconstrued opinions of others. Rear your children with discipline and honor.



4. I loved this book because it tells of a life that fought the good fight and didn't give up... and then won the battle. From the time he was a child all the way to the supreme court, his hardships and difficult trials he faced and how he over came them time and time again. Clarence Thomas story is one of the greatest in American history and you will not be disappointed in this book.. Loved it!



5. This book really gave me a glimpse into what Justice Thomas felt like growing up with segregation and then fighting throughout his life for equality. He is extremely sincere and honest about his shortcomings in life so the reader really feels as though they got to know him. I didn't understand the rage and resentment that he felt against discrimination because I didn't grow up in that environment. I think this book is a must-read for everyone, especially white people (like me) that don't understand why some people are voting for Barack Obama just because he's part African. I've always believed that should be the least important of aspect of the decision. Thomas' solution to inequality is for all people to be given the same opportunities, not favoring any race, white or black, and that really got the liberals angry with him (and they're still angry at him today) for not accepting their handouts.

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

1. I hate to piggyback on another review, but Charles B Fehr really nails this book. Those who dislike it seem to be expecting a book about the legal profession, when in fact it's simply about him. He just happens to be stuck in the legal profession, but one could easily swap in investment banking or any other office job and have the same experience. Anyone who has ever worked in an office can identify with the characters that drive him nuts, just as any of us who are creative, independent, and adventurous can identify with his desire to make every moment outside the office count. He mentions a 3-to-1 ratio of hours spent working to hours free on the weekend and the need to make those weekend hours "superhours" - so that they count triple. We should all live like that.
   
   The beauty of this book is that you don't have to approve of his lifestyle decisions - drugs, boozing, promiscuous sex, etc - to enjoy the stories and come to like him (and even identify with him) in the end. He is a strong writer and a superb storyteller and the book is a great read from start to finish. Those of us who are Ten Percenters as he describes in an early chapter will absolutely love the book, but there's enough there for the other ninety percent to enjoy it as well.



2. 
   As an attorney myself, this book is perhaps the most tragically hysterical piece of literature I've ever encountered. Witty, refreshingly honest, and laugh-out-loud funny, this book is a must read.
   
   Philadelphia Lawyers takes an irredeemable profession, chock full of irredeemable human beings, and finds something redeemable buried beneath it all -- a rip roaring book. My only hope is that this book is successful enough that he will never have to practice again. Cheers,



3. From the time I was a kid my parents said law might be a good career choice for me. I wanted to be a professional soccer player at the time, but you might as well have a backup plan. Naturally it seemed like a good choice because I loved to argue. And why not, I was good at it. It wasn't until I was a little bit older when I looked around at my friend's parents who were lawyers, former lawyers-turned-professors, and realized that not many of them enjoyed the job. And if they didn't, how would I?
   
   Happy Hour Is For Amateurs gives a great account of exactly what is wrong with the profession. Philadelphia Lawyer explains exactly the type of people that you will meet on your journey through "the world's worst profession." Billable hours, awful partners, golden handcuffs. The writer takes you on a journey with his life as the guide.
   
   Where Philadelphia Lawyer truly shines in this book though is in his absolutely astute observational ability. He picks up on societal cues, work culture, nuances, and interesting subtleties about everyday life. And when you sit down and think about it you realize how right Philadelphia Lawyer is. He sees the world with a focused lens for deconstruction and explanation.
   
   Whether the writer is talking about life in college, the terrible age of 26, or working in that career you loathe going to, his assertions are always clever and correct. An amazing gift in my opinion.
   
   Ten years is a long time in a career as soul-breaking as law, but if there is one thing Philadelphia Lawyer cemented in my mind. It is that I am truly glad I did not take the gentle advice of my parents and start a career in law. If this book is an indicator of what might happen to a person trapped, I wonder what would have happened to me?



4. Half-memoir, half-gonzo, Happy Hour Is For Amateurs is greater than the sum of its autobiographical parts. Ultimately, the book is a morality play; the deadly sins are sacrificing happiness for a paycheck and perpetuating the status quo in a morally bankrupt industry.
   
   Some readers may object to the author's profanity and depiction of drug and alcohol use--of course, some readers call Mark Twain "racist" and Aldous Huxley "immoral." In other words, if you have a weak constitution or delicate sensibilities, this book probably isn't for you.
   
   This book is for: (1) every worker who's ever felt like a cog or an itinerant, (2) every person who thinks, "this is as good as it gets for me," and (3) anyone who enjoys funny, insightful writing on topics most people can relate to. From the book: "There's an accidental wisdom in following. Letting something else define you narrows the decisions you have to make. It gives you parameters, a track to follow and a holiday from all the angst that comes with carving your own path." `Following' is exactly what some people need--this book is for everyone else.
   
   Happy Hour Is For Amateurs is not a book about being a lawyer, it's a book about being unsatisfied with what you do. (Though it's completely, depressingly accurate if you want to know what the actual practice of law is like for the majority of attorneys.) It's about settling and the push-pull of childhood dreams--and adult dreams--against the weight of responsibility and expectations. Philalawyer escaped, and most of us haven't, a fact sure to generate equal measures of envy and hostility. Either way, this book is compulsory reading for every disaffected office monkey, every fungible bureaucrat.
   
   The writing is always serviceable and frequently soars. Some readers may quibble with the non-linear style--but this isn't a novel, and each chapter contributes something important on the way to understanding the overall ethic of the author. The momentum slows very occasionally, but the humor underlying each vignette is more than enough to
   excuse the occasional digression.
   
   Lawyers, in particular, will nod their heads in agreement or sympathy throughout Philalawyer's book. Equity partners in big law firms might not get it, and associates on the same track will probably ignore it. The rest of us will say, "Thank you," and buy him a drink.



5. The introductory author's note concludes with Sergeant Hulka's memorable line from Stripes "Lighten up, Francis" and it sets the tone for what's to come. Occasionally, pre-release examination copies will cross my desk, but this was the first book to inspire me to jump on Amazon and write a review.
   
   Happy Hour is for Amateurs is not for everyone. If you're easily offended, you might do better to avoid the book. More importantly, if you rely on cognitive dissonance to get through 9-5 life, then the book might shake your fragile mental farce a little too violently.
   
   Philadelphia Lawyer tells the story of a young man fresh out of college who is beaten down over the course of a decade in the legal profession. The lines between work and play, misery and happiness are often blurred, and each chapter is a slightly different take following an overarching theme of discontent leading to self-actualization. Perhaps the author's greatest strength is his ability to maintain a fast-paced, page-turning plot while interspersing insightful anecdotes that put into words all the random thoughts I've had about corporate culture, leaving me wondering "why the hell didn't I write this?" Yet, at the same time, I realize that it takes great craft to make life's mundanity compelling.
   
   Philadelphia Lawyer writes like a man who isn't afraid to write. So often writers are concerned with what others might think; what literary conventions or technicalities to abide by in order to appeal to a certain crowd, but in this book the language comes relentless and unrestrained. Pop culture references from the last half century blend seamlessly with serious deliberations on legal culture and its implications on sanity. Finally, somebody is writing in an honest way about the world the forty and under population grew up in.
   
   Immersed in a mass of workaholic drones all too eager to bill their way to the top, the narrator turns to mind-altering substances to cope with his sad reality. His sexual exploits left me laughing and cringing all at once, but the trick is Philadelphia Lawyer tells the story like you're in on the joke. One doesn't have to identify exactly with his debauchery, but instead with the potential of that act's occurrence. That maybe, if the stars had aligned differently, it might have been me running from the cops in a blizzard - merely entertaining the thought reminds us that the world isn't as serious as everyone seems to make it out to be.
   
   Our egos are padded from childhood to make us believe there is a greater purpose behind all our actions. Despite what we're led to believe sometimes life really is a ridiculous charade - the only purpose being that there is none. Everybody has to earn a paycheck, and the need for food and shelter is a real one. Somehow in our drive to provide, we start taking everything serious. We forget how to take a joke and laugh at ourselves. Philadelphia Lawyer reminds us that enjoying the ride is more important than the end goal.
   
   The sad truth is that without the humor, the subject would be an unbearable read. Hardly a page goes by without negative adjectives such as "rotten" "awful" "terrible" or "atrocious." As someone unaccustomed to the legal climate, the daily drudgery experienced within the plot really begin to wear. Just when I think "this can't possible get any worse" it does. I imagine lawyers may find themselves offended, but if so, they are missing the point. Philadelphia Lawyer does not blame the players, he blames a corrupt and immoral game. Nonetheless the players - whether a thirty year old gunner looking for the next promotion or a twenty-something drug dealer looking to latch on to anything - are held responsible for their own existence.
   
   Among all the vulgarity and belligerence there is a very real message communicated. That message will resonate differently with everyone, but "do what you love and love what you do" sums it up nicely for me. Unfortunately it takes the legal profession, a concentrated embodiment of every occupational evil, to demonstrate what we're all failing to see. The end goal of life isn't to die.
   
   For a first effort, it's no wonder Philadelphia Lawyer is already making waves in the legal and publishing community. A fresh voice that has emerged from a thankless, empty lifestyle with something to offer all of us. Happy Hour is for Amateurs is a book I recommend to anyone that's ever sat in a pub and complained about their day.
   
   And Francis, before you get all worked up and self-righteous, remember: if you can't laugh at yourself, then everyone else will do it for you.

5 comments about One L: The Turbulent True Story of a First Year at Harvard Law School.

1. This book was incredibly lawtastic. It's like fantastic, except with law in there too. If you like lawtastic things, this book is for you.



2. I have read most of Scott Turow's books. This one is different, but extremely captivating. Reading of his life as a first year law student will be entertaining to anyone who contemplates law school or simply wonders what law students go through to obtain their degree.



3. I hear references to this book all the time in the halls of my law school and on fellow student's face book message boards. I do not go to a top tier law school like the author (he went to Harvard). I also have a different background than the author and our political views are not similar.
   
   Nonetheless, this book does relate a lot of the experiences and attitudes a law student can expect to run across during the first year. The overly aggressive professor, the students who have a problem with those who succeed, the students who do not know how to succeed but annoy everyone with their efforts, the students who panic, the students who mooch, and the ever present fear that no person could ever master the amount of information a law student is expected to know by the time of the final...but someone will and they will push down the curve. Every law student has run across these types of people and experiences.
   
   I do not think law school is as hard or stressful as the author seems to think it was. I am not sure he played up that aspect of the school for dramatic effect, he just can't handle stress, or life at Harvard Law School is really just that much more intense than my own. Still, reading this book gives a prospective student a taste of what is to come.
   
   The book is very readable and I finished it quickly; however, it is not a classic I would recomend to everyone. I am not sure a person who has no interest in going to law school will really be that excited about reading "One L," but if you are thinking about going to law school, you should read this book.



4. This book was a joke. I have no doubt that Turow and his fellows at HLS did indeed conduct themselves with the frantic lunacy that he so wearyingly describes in this book. I'm sure he simply told the truth and that law school was indeed that miserable for him, but that is exactly the problem. Having been through 1L at a somewhat less elite school, I can assure you that its only as bad as you make it. That HLS is an even more competitive school than mine only adds credence to the one thing I must say to Turow and the rest of the HLS graduating class of 1978: Get over yourself. You graduated from HLS. You could have finished with a 2.00 GPA and still drowned in the job offers that many top performers of other law schools can only dream about.
   
   "One L" is a severe disappointment. As I know that books about the law school experience are very popular gifts to students entering their own "1L," I have a duty to go ahead and tell you that for 99.992% of all students, this book is of absolutely no help in preparing someone for what they will face when they get to law school. Turow's view from America's tallest ivory tower not only presents an experience totally divorced from the real world, but does so in a ridiculously dramatized manner that forces upcoming law students to respond with either incredulity or sheer terror. Don't bother.



5. I thought this book is a good book to read before starting law school. Granted people must take into consideration that this is Harvard Law, set in the 70's and from one man's point of view. I enjoyed the book and found it interesting and insightful. I'm not taking everything he says in it as an absolute truth, but it does help to gain some insight into how one may feel while going through your first year of law school. I would recommend it to other people.

5 comments about A Piece of Cake: A Memoir.

1. I really enjoyed this book. I could not put it down. I found it to be a very honest, emotional, and raw account of her life. I am just amazed at how she could overcome all of the things that she went through. Her story could certainly become a best selling movie!! The best book I read in a long time.



2. This book was so intresting from page 1. Cupcakes' life is amazing to me and I find it beautiful that was able to survive and find peace in her life. She deserves it after all the crap she went through.



3. I have to say, the cover of this book is what caught my eye at the store. Bright, in your face, and cheesy. But the inside, was filet mignon. It was AMAZING. I could not put it down. I missed nights of sleep, saying to myself, "go to bed after this next chapter" and yet at the end of each, I could not help myself from going to the next.
   Bravo Cupcake, you have written an amazing book. It was a fantastic story, moving , inspiring, and worthy of becoming a movie. The best part is, it is such an easy read.
   I will be reading it again soon.



4. For the first 250 pages this was the best memoir I have ever read. I touted it to all of my friends, neighbors, and anyone who would listen. When I got to the last 200 pages, however, I was bored by the writing style which seemed (forgive me) lazy.
   
   Overall, however, Ms. Brown's story is absolutely incredible and she should be commended for getting through adversity that would have killed anyone else. I loved the way she wrote so candidly.



5. The only reason I didnt give this book five stars is because it went on a bit too long. Towards the end, it seemed to drag a bit. Overall, the book was incredibly interesting and the author's life was astonishing and seemed unbelievable at times. Its not that I think the stories are made up, but I had no idea that people could be functional and abuse drugs in the way the author abused drugs. She certaInly knows how to tell a story. This author proves that, in life, absolutely anything is possible. I think she is awfully brave to tell her story without holding anything back, in spite of the fact that she works at one of those prestigious, snooty law firms.

5 comments about In Justice: Inside the Scandal That Rocked the Bush Administration.

1. I knew this book was going to be good before I bought it. Americans need to read this so they won't make the same mistakes as the last time. I'e seen this man interviewed several times on TV. He appears to be very genuine whose mission is only to tell the truth.



2. "In Justice" primarily relates Iglesias' experience in the notorious DOJ firing of 8 prosecutors in 2006. While the DOJ actions were historic and nefarious, and ultimately led to A.G. Gonzales' resignation, Iglesias' story tells us nothing that wasn't already clearly revealed already in the press.
   
   Most of the book is taken up with Iglesias' earlier life - becoming interested in law and then the Navy, becoming a White House Fellow (one of 17 out of 1,250 applicants), applying for the U.S. Attorney position and getting Domenici's support, etc.
   
   Then local Republican support soured when Iglesias failed to develop voter fraud cases due to lack of evidence. Heather Wilson (Republican Congresswoman) and Senator Domenici followed up with inappropriate telephone "inquiries" aimed at propelling the cases forward.
   
   Iglesias then learns of the others fired in the "house cleaning," DOJ makes clumsy attempts to besmirch the reputations of those targeted, the press learns of White House involvement (Harriett Miers and Karl Rove), and Roberto Gonzales ("I don't remember" 80 times during a Senate hearing) makes himself look incredibly out-of-touch, if not totally dishonest.
   
   The only "good news" out of this episode is that ultimately DOJ was rid of some of its unjust top leadership, and the Patriot Act provision that allowed indefinite interim U.S. Attorney appointments without Senate confirmation was repealed.



3. If Alberto Gonzalez wanted to fire all of these qualified prosecutors, just because they were not "Republican enough," he should have done it one by one. Then no one would have noticed. But instead, he thought no one would notice a mass firing and even more, no one would do anything about it.
   
   This book explains how it happened, why it happened, and helps us remember we have a Constitution in this country that must be preserved.
   
   As to the book itself, large parts are a little dull because the author must tell us more about himself and that is not all that interesting. He's an intelligent guy doing a good job. However, the last 100+ pages are riveting as he reveals the lies of the Justice Department and specifically Alberto Gonzales.
   
   RK



4. It was sad, yet refreshing, to see a true "Bush-ite" see the truth about the lying, law-breaking administration that we have been saddled with for eight years.



5. "In Justice" is a thoroughly absorbing, detailed look at how absolute power corrupts absolutely. If a late-night walk through the White House and the Department of Justice, after all the day-workers have gone home and when the real skulduggery begins, is your cup of tea, read this book. In looking at the case of the seven U.S. Attorneys, we can see how ANY administration (in this case the Bush-Cheney brand) can simply make things happen and make good people go away with no explanations and no justifications. The book also serves as a good example of how vast power can make once-rational people think that no one will find out what they are up to, whether it's sex in the Oval Office or, in Iglesias's book, the firing of seven U.S. Attorneys for purely political reasons.

5 comments about Don't Pee on My Leg and Tell Me It's Raining: America's Toughest Family Court Judge Speaks Out.

1. I just finished reading this book and it was amazing! I couldn't put it down. Judge Judy is so honest and has many incredible positions on the justice system that each state should take note. I personally agree with her on all of her stances toward welfare, incarceration, and law in general. A must read for all politicians!



2. Judge Judy didn't disappoint in this book with her life's experiences as a judge in New York. It helps you realize what the justice system is like and the people they see on a daily basis. There are some very shocking cases!
   
   People seem to surprise you whenever you turn around. Her career as a Judge in New York must have many stories and she shares some doozies with you in this book...
   
   Definitely worth it!
   
   Merna
   
   Pocket of Pearls: A 30-day pocket workbook to start hearing a softer voice inside of you!



3. I am a fan of Judge Judy. I like her no nonsense approach to life and the legal system. Having myself grown up in a family of police and police chiefs, I know full well the crap that goes on in life as well as the legal system. Having just gone through a legal fiasco of being accused of something I didn't and wouldn't do, I prayed to have a judge like Judge Judy preside over the case. This drug out for 2 years while the other person smeared my name in every media outlet she could think of - even the FBI - and every place where I was scheduled to give talks about my book. I finally had to sue her to shut her up and then she hid like a scared @*&%$! Well after dragging this out by not providing us with their evidence and discovery - which I am sure she didn't have, they decided to settle out of court with a public retraction and an apology as to what she had said about me. So I never got my day in court, but oh I wish I had just to hear Judge Judy tell her "you can't fix stupid and dumb is forever!" I recommend her books, they are funny, comical and down to earth legal approches to life in the court system. You will get a whole new perspective on the way things are done and they might get you fired up to get a wrong you have been dealt righted. Read Them!!



4. First off I love Judge Judy, I think she is brilliant, funny, and right on the money with her quips and viewpoints.....secondly, i found this book absolutely tortuous to read, and gave up after about 70 pages of it, for some reason I just could not go on with it anymore....Judy's ideas on how to solve what ails our society are insightful, and worth taking note of. However, the book is so poorly written, i couldn't continue to finish it. maybe its just the way it was put togther, but this was not at all what i was hoping it would be.



5. I got this book at the libary and I was so disapointed. From the title I thought it was a book of funny cases. Its not.Its a book on how she became a Judge. there may have been cases ,but I don't remember any.

No comments about Without Precedent: The Life of Susie Marshall Sharp.

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

1. 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.



2. 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.



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. 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.



5. 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.

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

1. 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.



2. 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



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. 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.



5. 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.