Politics Government Books

Albert Speer had a front seat to the machinations of the Third Reich. He was an architect by training, seemingly intelligent and rational - which puts him at odds with the evil eccentrics like Himmler, von Ribbentrop, Goering, etc., While Speer delves into his early life, the book primarily deals with the years between 1933 and 1945 when the Third Reich rose to power. Speer was at first an architect and designer but quickly rose in the ranks due to his organizational skills. Ultimately he became Minister of Arms and Munitions. Supposedly, despite intense Allied bombing of their factories, Speers efforts increased arms production, prolonging the war. Speer wrote this book while in prison for 20 years after the Nuremberg Trials.

The purpose of all memoirs is to lie. Or, more gently, the purpose is to portray the past in a light favorable to the author. Even accepting that basic truth, memoirs can be very useful. ItTR is history as portrayed by Albert Speer, who was much more than just "Hitler's Architect." The book is an effort by Speer to portray himself as, alternately, a hapless victim of circumstance or a noble dissident, trying to undermine the Hitler regime from within. I imagine there may be some measure of truth to both of these claims but, as I said, the purpose of a memoir is to lie. Especially unimpressive is his great moral conviction to stand up at Nuremberg and take responsibility for everything. It's easy to do the right thing when you have no other real choice...

That aside, ItTR is still worth reading. The most interesting aspect of the book is its insights into Hitler's personality. For much of the pre-war regime, up until maybe 1942 or so, Speer was probably once of the few people who might arguably be called Hitler's "friend." At times, one is almost tempted to feel sorry for Hitler, given his obvious personality disorder(s).

It's also interesting for what Speer leaves out. There is surprisingly little mention of the Holocaust. The fact that this topic is so consistently avoided undermines the notion that Speer was the moral icon he tries to pretend to be. There is absolutely no way he, in his position, could not have known about the camps and what was happening. After all, he was partially responsible for importing slave-labor to German factories during the war. This omission is very telling, IMO.

In all, ItTR is a valuable book, assuming you can read it with the several grains of salt necessary. Speer the historian is acceptable; Speer the "Good Nazi" is absurd.

Recommended.

Contrary to my preconcieved ideas this memoir offered little insight into a world war II stricken germany. Speer instead focuses mostly on his work as an architect and later his duties as Armaments minister. However, Speer does elaborate throughout the book on his ever changing relationship with the fuhrer. As a first hand account this book offers incredible insights into many of the top nazi officials and i also found his architectural projects intriguing. His portrait of Hitler is worth the read in itself as he turns the image of omnipotent dictator on its head. In the end your likely to find Speer's tragedy a sympathetic and fascinating one.

Reich Marshall Albert Speer was in charge of Germany's armament production, and this is the main subject of my review (based on the original 1970 English-language edition).

A major advance in military production had been achieved by the Germans long before WWII: "The real creator of the concept of industrial self-responsibility was Walther Rathenau, the great Jewish organizer of the German economy during the First World War." (p. 249)

Allied WWII strategic bombing failed to knock out crucial German military manufacture, notably ball-bearing production, because the Allies couldn't know if and when the dispersal of this manufacture had been achieved (p. 341). Moreover, aerial photos were often misinterpreted (by both sides), leading to an exaggerated sense of success regarding the destruction of industrial targets. For example, "ruined" factories turned out to have surviving sections which enabled the revival of full production in as little time as two weeks (p. 341). Bombed railroad tracks could often be repaired in a matter of hours (p. 337). (This clarifies complaints about the Allies not bombing the tracks to Auschwitz, and of the Polish Underground not dynamiting other tracks; apart from the fact that the Polish Underground wasn't significantly organized until the latter half of 1943, by which time the Germans had already murdered most of Poland's 3.3 million Jews).

Owing to these and other difficulties, the outcome of Allied precision bombing was not surprising: "But the enemy had always demonstrated a lack of consistency; he switched from target to target or attacked in the wrong places." (p. 412)

Now consider Allied area bombing. It has fallaciously been attacked as ineffective. In actuality, the disruption of urban-industrial function caused by area bombing caused more lost productivity than the actual destruction itself. Following the Hamburg firestorm, Speer reported to Hitler that armaments production was collapsing, and that six more such raids would bring German war production to a total halt (p. 338). So area bombing didn't bring Germany to her knees not because area bombing didn't work, but because it wasn't pursued with sufficient focus: "Fortunately for us, a series of Hamburg-type raids was not repeated on such a scale against other cities." (p. 339)

Allied bombing succeeding in forcing the Germans to divert crucial frontline resources: "Had it not been for this new front, the air front over Germany, our defensive strength against tanks would have been about doubled, as far as equipment was concerned. Moreover, the antiaircraft force tied down hundreds of thousands of young soldiers. A third of the optical industry was busy producing gunsights for flak batteries. About half of the electronics industry was engaged in producing radar and communications networks for defense against bombing. Simply because of this, in spite of the high level of the German electronics and optical industries, the supply of our frontline troops with modern equipment remained far behind that of the Western armies." (p. 332)

Finally, Allied bombing practically insured that Germany would not develop an atom bomb. Speer commented: "For it was not only superior productive capability that allowed the United States to undertake this gigantic project. The increasing air raids had long since created an armaments emergency in Germany which ruled out any such ambitious enterprise." (p. 273)

I've lived with Speer's memoirs now for what? over 30 years. I've read them numerous times. I can never tell when it's time to do it again. A repeat viewing of HBO's "Comspiracy" prompted my latest re-reading.

I come away from Speer's memoirs with some very odd and complex feelings. Speer seems so utterly detached from everything, and most of all from his own psychology, that reading his memoirs can sometimes inspire a kind of vertigo.

Those times when he seems close to revealing something genuinely authentic, he often sounds like a child or adolescent. This was most evident in his description of his illness during the war, when he was almost sidelined for good, and had to engage in some serious intrigue in order to keep his position. The combination of acute political acumen, and childlike frustration he displays is really very peculiar, and it pays to read that part of the book with great care.

There is no question that the book is written very clearly and beautifully. But the cameos of various Nazi leaders are just that: snapshots that seldom create a whole being. This aspect of the book is like looking at a scrapbook of photographs with short captions. We seldom get any real insight into these people. Just as Speer has very little insight into himself.

Oh, he says all the right things, and says them often. But there is a strange, forced quality to his numerous mea-culpas that leave a very peculiar miasma behind. I don't doubt that, in some way, Speer believes what he says about his guilt. There's also no doubt that Speer knew exactly what was going on in the concentration camps, but simply chose not to know. He was informed, but turned away from the information.

It's almost as if he never really did comprehend the scale of the Holocaust. That it was all unreal to him, both during, and after. The extreme demands of his work during the war would have contributed to this. He would have kept his head down and worked incredibly hard, like any good technocrat, and that would have made it easier to simply ignore the Hell directly in front of him.

All of this is unintentially revealing, I think. There are two books in Speer's Memoirs. The plain story he tells, and another story, between the lines, about a man who was so good at compartmentalizing his life that he could tolerate almost anything.

Speer's Memoirs are most disturbing when you realize that he is us: he is the "average man." Above average intelligence and training, yes. But average or below in his psychological insight. And that is how it happens. Most humans have no psychological intelligence at all. Or just enough to get by in the world. And that is how the Hitlers work their will. Speer's books are a cautionary tale in ways he never imagined, about how it can indeed happen here. It can happen anywhere. With the Speers of the moment facilitating every step.

This text is the finest I have come across for a basic understanding of American government.

MMMurphy

Wilson's book is a very solid foundation for begining political science clases. It delivers the information in a to the point way that is easy to understand. The charts and graphs barely reach the '90's and need to be updated. The headlines are very useful when skiming and reviewing. The end of the chapter summaries and bold typed vocabulary words are very convieninet for studying. . .A well written book that shows all sides of controversial issues!

American Government covered everything and anything on politics. I could not have asked for a better introduction on politics! It covered everything from the US Constitution to interest groups and the bureaucracy. If you are interested in politics, but need a simple, solid introduction, this book is for you! However, I found the book was difficult to read, as it was poorly written and tedious at times. Although this book is probably the best intro to Government around, do not buy it if you have a short attention span.

This book offers a foundation for political concepts and historic background about the U.S. Using standard survey course format, the author skims the broad topics of government from the core documents, including the Declaration and the Constitution, to the general structures and processes of governing. While I must conclude with a prior reviewer that the writing is unexciting, I have yet to find THE basic government text equivalent of "Democracy - Not 4 Dummies"

A trully remarkable text book! This text strives where many fail, in communicating with students from AP level high school to Doctoral studies. Includded are full color diagrams on the political process, governmental structure dating back to the 1600s. Also, philisophical viewpoints from Plato to John Locke. The benefit of the text, is its current up-to-date information on the 'insides' of political views and parties. This text would assist anyone in learning about our nations history and government.

Throughout church histroy men have struggled to protect truth. This book is an excellent study of one man's battle to stay true to his fatih. It serves as a reminder to us of how truth is often lost one small step at a time.

This is an amazing book that precisely outlines the basis of attacks that liberalism makes on Christianity, including the most subtle. Insightful and no holds barred!

J. Gresham Machen's main burden in his book, Christianity and Liberalism, is to make a clear distinction between true Christianity and what had, by that time, been termed as liberalism. It was primarily within the context of the unparalleled advances in industry, technology, and science of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century that liberalism began to take form. Contrary to what some may believe today, liberalism did not begin as a bold-faced attempt to undermine Biblical Christianity; rather, it grew out of a growing need to address serious questions confronting Christianity at a time of such cultural upheaval and change: "What is the relation between Christianity and modern culture; may Christianity be maintained in a scientific age (6)?"

Unfortunately, however, liberalism, in its attempt to `rescue' the truths of Christianity in an age where the historical and scientific accounts in Scripture where being heavily questioned and disregarded, actually began to abandon those tenets of the faith that appeared to be in contradiction with modern science. Thus, liberal teachers sought to "rescue certain of the general principles of religion, of which these particularities are thought to be mere temporary symbols, and these general principles he regards as constituting the `essence of Christianity'"(6). For example, if a bodily resurrection seemed incongruous with a modern understanding of science, then liberalism attempted to demonstrate that such teaching in Scripture, though perhaps not historically true, was symbolic of Christ's permanent influence or a "mere spiritual existence of Jesus beyond the grave" (108). As a result, Christianity could maintain its credence within the modern age, while at the same time preserving its religious form.

Consequently, liberalism inserted new content into Christian language and in their endeavor to make Christianity more believable, actually turned away from the historic Christian faith. As such, liberalism, in Machen's mind, cannot be considered merely another denomination of Christianity, or even a weakened system of Christianity, but rather a whole other religion, altogether separate from Christianity.

The need for a lucid demarcation between Biblical Christianity and liberalism is especially important because, as we have already observed, and as Machen substantiates throughout the rest of the book, liberalism makes use of traditional Christian language, yet the content of that language is vastly different than that of historic Christianity. Throughout the main body of the text, Machen deals with seven areas where liberalism has departed from historic Christianity: doctrine and its attendant importance in the life of God's people, God, man, the Bible, Christ, salvation, and the Church. In each section, he examines the subject matter by first accurately presenting the liberal position, and then by contrasting this teaching over against the historic Biblical position.

This is a well-reasoned and powerful treatment of the differences between Christianity and Liberalism. And despite its age, this is a much needed book today. Some questions that we might ask are: is this kind of linguistic slight-of-hand occurring today? Where and in what form? Are there movements today that are, out of good intention, endeavoring to contextualize the gospel, yet are abandoning the faith that they are seeking to proclaim. How can we expose this? And when we do find fault, are we laboring to present the opposing views honestly and accurately so that Christ will not be discredited by our devious proliferation of the truth? I believe this book will help us correctly answer these inquires.

Very readable and rather amazing that it wasn't written in the past 5 - 10 years. Obviously liberalism and Christianity have been at loggerheads for decades. I think the insight that I appreciate the most is the emphasis on honestly defining ones theological framework and terms. If you are redefining Christian theology, don't call yourself "Christian"; rather demonstrate enough integrity to call yourself something else. Just because you disagree with the major tenants of Christian doctrine doesn't mean you're any brighter or more insightful, necessarily, but it does mean you should call yourself something other than Christian.

The message of this famous classic of the Christian faith is more desperately needed in the 21st century than it was in the early 20th century. Since Machen wrote, the philosophical and theological trends that generated the issues he was addressing have become more firmly entrenched in the consciousness not only of the culture at large, but of evangelical Christianity in particular. The major thesis of this books is not that theological liberalism is bad, although Machen leaves little doubt of his opinion of it. Rather, the major thesis is that theologically liberal Christianity is not Christianity at all, and that toward every one of the most fundamental teachings of historic Christianity, theological liberalism takes an antithetical stance. These fundamental teachings are expounded in seven brief chapters, covering an introduction, doctrine in general, God & man, the Bible, the person of Jesus Christ, salvation, and the church.

The position of the liberal church toward doctrine is that Christianity should be an undogmatic religion, unconcerned with theological subtleties. Christianity should be a life, not a system of doctrine. Certainly at this point, liberalism could not possibly be more firmly allied with contemporary mainstream evangelicalism. Anti-doctrinalism goes hand in hand with the two most pervasive philosophical currents of our age, postmodernism with its radical relativism, and existentialism, with its radical subjectivism and distrust of objective systems in general. Machen shows that the religion of both the apostle Paul and Jesus Christ himself was as dogmatic as possible. For example, even in the Sermon on the Mount, a favorite passage among theological liberals, "Jesus represents Himself as seated on the judgment seat of all the earth . . . Could anything be further removed than such a Jesus from the humble teacher of righteousness appealed to by modern liberalism?"

Concerning God and Man, Machen emphasizes the liberal tendency to break down the separateness between God and Man and to take an optimistic view of human goodness. One of the most penetrating insights in the book is that "modern liberalism, even when it is not consistently pantheistic, is at any rate pantheizing." This is in opposition to the orthodox teaching of the absoluteness of the Creator-creature distinction, and also of the absolute moral gulf between God and Man as a result of sin, hopelessly unbridgeable apart from the work of Jesus Christ.

Related to the aversion of liberalism to doctrine, or an objective summary of truth, is a corresponding mistrust of the Bible, and the rejection of the Bible's authority as God's Word. Liberalism claims to replace the authority of the Bible with the authority of Jesus Himself, but having rejected the teachings of Jesus in the Bible and through the apostles, this authority amounts to nothing more than the authority of personally selected isolated instances of Jesus' words, interpreted to conform to the liberal religion.

In the person of Jesus Christ, liberalism sees an example for faith, but not an object of faith. This is because the driving principle of liberalism, anti-supernaturalism, cannot admit the historical teaching of who Jesus Christ really was. For liberalism "Jesus differs from the rest of men only in degree, and not in kind: He can be divine only if all men are divine."

Concerning salvation, liberalism sees the source of salvation in man; Christianity sees it in God. Machen also shows that what distinguished early Christianity from the pagan religions of the time was specifically its exclusiveness. Paganism, like modern liberalism, had no problem with many roads to God and many gods, but it has a very deep problem with the exclusivity of Christianity. Finally, the very concept of salvation in Christianity is concerned with heaven, or the future world and life, while modern liberalism is concerned only with this world. This is in my estimation the area in which the majority of Reformed Christians have in fact followed liberalism, specifically with the contemporary preoccupation with cultural transformation as the means to institute God's kingdom on this earth. This is precisely the idea that unambiguously characterizes unbelieving thought, from the rebellious nation of Israel, through the Pharisees, and into the Enlightenment and modern liberalism. Until the European Enlightenment, the true church had consistently affirmed that the world is not our home.

The final chapter on the church is where we have the best glimpse of Machen himself. What Machen could not understand was that if liberalism was so clearly another religion, why it insisted on calling itself Christianity. As far as he was concerned, this was just plain dishonesty. It is in this chapter that he says that he has no problem with liberalism establishing itself as a separate religion competing with Christianity. But calling itself Christianity when it was clearly not, spreading its non-Christian teachings to Christians, and with liberal ministers taking ordination vows to historic confessions of faith which could not possibly be sincere, this was the liberalism against which Machen fought for his whole life, a battle which in the mainline Presbyterian church he ultimately lost. This book clearly and powerfully sets forth what was at stake in the battle, which was and remains nothing other than Christianity itself. The book is well worth reading for all Christians who are committed to their faith. It is not a difficult book to read, and the fundamental issues have changed very little in one hundred years.

When I was thirteen years old (circa 1985), I saw a book on the shelves of the famous "A Clean Well Lighted Place for Books," located in the Larkspur Landing Shopping Center, Larkspur, CA. It was the picture of the Israeli Uzi on the cover that caught my attention. Like many 13 year old boys, I was fascinated by sub-machine guns and automatic pistols. I bought the book because of the cover, but I was in no way ready for the tale I was about to be told. It was the tale of the Israeli Mossad avenging the deaths of the athletes that had been murdered at the Olympic games in Munich (circa 1972). The book read like a Ludlum novel, only this story was true! Contrary to the cover, all the assignations were carried out with .22 caliber ordnance (the choice of Mossad assassins), and not by the 9mm Uzi. This book opened my eyes to a historical tragedy that happened while I was still in diapers -- a tragedy not mentioned in American High School textbooks. And it gave me a fine respect for the prowess and professional nature of Israeli Intelligence (HaMossad leModi'in v'leTafkidim Meyuhadim).

"Vengence" is an insider's account of the formation and actions of a counter-terrorism team. Unlike the fictional Bourne series emphasis on hand to hand fighting skills, the bulk of the subject's work involved obtaining information, being smart with it, and executing the target. Who can you trust and how much of what they are saying is true was always the key question which would make the difference between being killed and making the kill. A very tense and disquieting story which reads fairly well for a non-fictional account, I recommend it to anyone interested in gaining insight into the dark side of war.

George Jonas's "Vengeance" is the book from which Steven Spielberg's "Munich" was derived. Both concern the Israeli hit team sent into the cold to track down and kill the authors of the 1972 massacre of Israeli Olympic athletes. While reaction to the movie focused on the moral ambiguity of it all, we see here that this is at best a minor angle in the book, and at worst, a willful distortion by critics.

The as-told-to story of Avner, the team leader's pseudonym, "Vengeance" details how the team is formed and begins work in Europe. With massacre perpetrators mostly dead, the hits are aimed at those higher up: those who hatched the plot, the leaders of international Palestinian terror.

Some, openly terrorists, live in hiding or in countries sympathetic to terror. They travel surrounded by bodyguards. These are considered hard targets. The Israeli team is not given permission to go to Arab or Communist countries.

But some are soft targets: Palestinians with covers as journalists, diplomats, intellectuals or professors, whose involvement with terror remains secret - the Sami Al-Arians of the 1970s. Trusting their covers, they live openly in cities like Paris or Rome, walk the streets alone, have fixed addresses, and generally don't carry guns or take attention-getting secret-agent precautions.

The hit team - assembled at the government's highest levels and severed from Mossad to preserve deniability - flounders at the outset. They can't locate their prey. Their big break comes through a chance contact: Avner reconnects with a childhood acquaintance, now a hanger-on of the Baader-Meinhof Gang, who, believing Avner to be a radical terrorist, introduces him to bigger wheels in the underworld of terror.

Avner discovers that terror, a big business, has developed a certain amount of outsourcing - organizations that, for hefty sums of money, secure safe houses, deliver arms, supply explosives, provide lookouts, do surveillance, arrange transportation, help with getaways and bury bodies. Providing networks terrorists couldn't possibly match, they free the latter to plan hits and getaways without worrying about logistics. The support networks also provide an extra cut-out level for the terrorists. They aren't picky about who they work for. Most important for Avner and his team - cut off as they are from Mossad and its resources - they even leak information on other terrorists' whereabouts.

Tapping into these networks - penetrating the terror world by impersonating terrorists - Avner hits the gold mine allowing his team to find and kill Israel's enemies.

At first they are so successful they marvel at how easy it is to find and kill a man. Almost too easy. Later, snags emerge. The hard-to-find people are still hard to find. A couple of missions don't go smoothly. Their Mossad liaision hints they're not moving fast enough. The team begins to press, attacking with less planning and caution. They are compelled to involve themselves - and their precious underworld contacts - in a major Israeli commando raid in Beirut, blowing the team's cover.

Their mood darkens as three team members die, two by assassination, leading survivors to wonder if they've been sold out by the very people who sold others out to them.

Yes, they contemplated the morality of it all - having to become terrorists, complete with constantly changing fake passports and shadowy changes of address - to fight terrorists. But their conclusion is that they're not like terrorists at all. Terrorists kill schoolchildren - the infamous Ma'alot massacre comes to mind - while the hit team kills terrorists, delivering justice crude, justice extralegal, but justice nevertheless. At the explicit orders of Israeli Premier Golda Meir they avoid killing bystanders, family members and anyone not on their hit list. By and large, they are successful. They go outside their orders only marginally: assassinating a Dutch hit woman who seduced and killed one team member, probably on behalf of the Palestinians, and assassinating a PLO replacement for an earlier target.

Avner's greater concerns are more specific. He is haunted by insecurity as a "yekke", an Israeli Jew with German roots, in Israel, a country dominated by "Galicianers", or Polish Jews, who, Avner feels, form a ruling clique reserving power and privilege for themselves. He and his teammates are all "yekkes", picked because they can blend in in Western Europe, but they all worry about being left hanging once their mission, and usefulness to the state, conclude. Avner's own father is a former Mossad agent, now embittered by his treatment. Avner worries the same thing will happen to them.

Gloom and paranoia set in as his teammates die. At mission end he returns to his wife and baby and decides he's had enough of this kind of life. His fears materialize when his superiors, refusing to let him go, take back $100,000 that had accrued in a Swiss bank as his pay. Avner accuses them of threatening his family in an effort to force him back into the fold - and notes his own countervailing "I know where your children go to school" threats against an Israeli security man in New York City he suspects of involvement.

Finally they leave him in peace, but penniless and forced to take menial jobs. Avner's decision to go public about his mission is clearly payback for this, a quest for recognition, and maybe for some money as well..

Avner and Jonas conclude the mission in the end presents no moral dilemma. Yes, the terror world replaces the dead terrorists and, yes, terror continues. But the people who were killed, deserved it. A message is sent that attacks on Israel and Jews no longer go unpunished, and that the Jewish state will go after those responsible, wherever and however.

He and his teammates ponder the morality of what they're doing because they are indeed normal human beings, not, unlike their adversaries, hardened killers. They ultimately believe in their mission. They see themselves as disciplined soldiers fighting for a democratic state. They fight an extralegal war because the world, again and again, has offered little or no justice for Jewish terror victims while encouraging, tacitly or actively, their murderers. In the 1970s Palestinian killers are let go, again and again, by appeasing Western governments, and commit more murders. Israel has no choice but to pursue them alone, by any means necessary, to show the world no one can strike with impunity at Jews ever again.

The book is convincing, possessed of details large and small about how teams of this sort operate. You can't help but be fascinated in learning Mossad's technique for doing a hit. Each step is developed with supreme calculation and attention to detail: small caliber, low power, quiet weapons, with safeties never used, rounds left unchambered, weapons never drawn until it's time to shoot, no shooting except to kill, and shots always fired in pairs.

Particularly convincing are details about bureaucratic infighting. The team, say, balks at participating in Beirut, not only because it will jeopardize their own work, but because, having taken the risks and done the work to plan an operation, they want to be the ones to do it and get the credit, secret though it is, inside Mossad - quite recognizable human behavior.

Overshadowing the book is the whole question of whether Avner is who he says he is, whether the book is true; is distorted; or is an out-and-out lie. Israel can't be expected to acknowledge its truth, if it's true; even few people within Mossad were party to it; and outside intelligence experts would have no way of assessing the truth of what is explicitly an ultrasecret mission.

Jonas says he believes Avner, in the end, not because of his own attempts at verification, but because Avner knew how the light switch in the lobby of a particular Roman apartment building worked. The detail most straining credibility, in my opinion, was the terror outsourcing network; it's a deus ex machina, these shadowy all-powerful guys who are on your side if you can pay them and know how to find them. And Avner stumbles over them because of a chance relationship with a childhood friend. It's so convenient, maybe too convenient. But it is still plausible.

At the end, this book is vivid and compelling, one you can't put down.

I read "Notes on a controversy" at the end of the book first, because this justification of the text by the author deals with the issue of veracity. The book has apparently been attacked on this score, and of course the very nature of the subject excludes the possibility of total and certain verification of all the facts, but the author makes a convincing case of the techniques he used in circumventing this problem and checking out his main source's story. That story itself is gripping, not only because it describes in thriller-like fashion the actions undertaken by an Israeli hit team against the masterminds behind the killings of Israel's Olympic team in 1972, but also because of what I would call, perhaps oddly, its humanity: the personal torment felt by the members of the hit team is faithfully portrayed, and is perhaps the most unforgettable part of the narrative. One closes the book with the uneasy feeling that there really is no way to avenge, let alone deter, the monstrous deeds perpetrated by terrorist scum. But I do not share a shred of the hit team's doubts that their actions were fully justified. This book is an eye-opener on the nature on terrorism, but also on the ruthlessness demanded of those who are called to combat it. The book leaves one with few illusions about "the secret world" either, which adds to its aura of truthfulness.

Vengeance succeeds on many levels. It could easily stand as a classic tradecraft work about espionage operations or as a fictional spy thriller. It is action packed and a real page-turner. I was disappointed when it ended.

Terrorism succeeds, when it succeeds, by using violence to send a public message to one's opposition. It amounts to negotiation by murder and bomb blasts. The message being: "If we aren't safe, you aren't safe either." That was the message that the Black September organization sent to Israel with their 1972 Munich action, and it was the same message that the Israeli state sent back to Black September via Avner's hit team. Terrorism is warfare by symbolic violence, although it's more than symbolic if you're there when the bombs go off or the shooting starts.

As to whether all aspects of Vengeance are literally "true," I admit I have my doubts. But so what? It has verisimilitude where it counts and whether this or that specific detail is literally true or is a mishmash of several events or characters combined is largely irrelevant. The ongoing terror campaigns going on all over the world today show that the morally ambiguous world that Avner and his opposition existed in 1972 hasn't changed that much. And it probably never will.

I should begin by saying that I like McChesney, and I admire and respect him as the leading authority in this area. I went into reading the book as if it were a magnum opus. The book started weak and ended strong.

Most of what you'll read here is common sense to anyone on the left who has paid attention to what has happened to the media in the past 30 years. However, McChesney does an excellent job at arguing against the common assumptions about the media. This is an excellent polemical resource for media activists for that reason, but do not turn to it for realistic policy prescriptions or philosophical soundness.

Yeah, democracy depends on a free press. But does a free press depend on democracy? I doubt that it does. A free press relies on freedom, obviously. The problem is that corporate owners manage the press, censor journalists, and set the agenda for the media. If journalists had more autonomy, you would bet that we would have a better press... but grassroots participation? The last thing we need is a press run by different interest groups that slant content towards a certain direction. Democracy is good for some things, but not for perveying truth. The press should be protected from public meddling the same way it should from private meddling. I'm fine with the public influencing media policy, but not journalism itself.

The second problem with this book is that it attributes the lack of political participation to the free press. If anything, the education system has more of an impact on public participation than the mass media. Yes, I think the media does a bad job at purveying important stories that could rouse political participation. What about people who aren't interested in current events? What about those who don't read the news? You cannot attribute a lack of participation to mass journalism when people don't read or watch the news. I know people who get most of their news entirely from mainstream television who are very into politics. They hold inaccurate ideas, but I wouldn't call them apathetic. Most of the people I know who are apathetic don't watch or read the news. Most of the people I know who are politically active have parents who were also interested in politics and had teachers who inspired them to be politically active.

Overall, this is a great book. McChesney has some great ideas about how the media needs to be nonprofit and how commercialism threatens journalism.

Another enlightening book with a more historical perspective would be Newton Minow's "Abandoned in the Wasteland", which is more focused on children, but provides an excellent history of the mass media.

Robert W. McChesney's exploration into the historical underpinnings and contemporary realities facing the United States media system has proven to be an extremely well-researched discussion. The Problem of the Media covers the evolution of American systems of journalism and entertainment media while exploring the problems of this evolution in their current manifestations. McChesney has produced an almost unerring synopsis of current problems facing the media, and, unlike most of his colleagues, offers real optimism and motions for future change.

I was extremely pleased with the way McChesney illuminates the historical nature of the media in the United States. He does a phenomenal job at coupling past incarnations of American media structures in their inherently partisan and biased formulations with today's antiseptic and sterile "professional" variety. The Problem of the Media is exceptional in this historical analysis as it does a logical and rational job of dropping left hook after right cross to the philosophical and practical foundations of the professional journalistic structures. It was as if someone has finally shown me real foundations, actual alternatives, and structures for change, but the beautiful part of all of this was that they had actually already existed (and in this country to boot).

McChesney's arguments are absolutely extraordinary as he goes toe to toe with the right wing noise machine's accusations of the liberal bias that exists within the mainstream newsroom. Drawing upon cogent arguments backed up with innumerable sources, McChesney goes on to systematically deconstruct the false arguments that are time and again posed by the conservative sophists that dominate the entirety of American information mediums. I have read several texts arguing against the so-called "liberal media," but none were as persuasive and apt as McChesney's proved to be. In addition to this, I thought that The Problem of the Media also did a very astute job of explaining to the reader all of the news that has not been covered in mainstream press, while foolish and arguably unimportant issues take to the forefront of coverage. Examples of this reality include the extremely lackluster and ill-timed coverage of the 2000 American Presidential elections as well as the seemingly censor-ridden coverage of the current war (if it can even be called that) in Iraq.

McChesney does not stop at the line of criticizing the current journalistic regime and its anti-democratic systems of "professionalism" and obtuse neutrality, but instead goes on to make vital connections between a capitalism gone crazy (hyper-capitalism) and the entertainment industry. I think if any regular American took the time to sit down and ready chapter four of The Problem of the Media s/he would find that s/he intuitively knew about the detrimental affects of massive media conglomerates, oligopolistic market controls, and the current manifestation of an increasingly intrusive and overbearing advertising/public relations sector. McChesney does a fine job at providing the reader with real examples of televisions shows (i.e. Monster Garage, Trading Spaces) that use this disgusting development in embedded advertising strategies and exposes the companies that support this process for what they are.

Fortunately, McChesney closes The Problem of the Media with words of encouragement and optimism. The discussion abounds with the realization that in order for there to be the massive change for a new positive media evolution their must be widespread education on the topic. This book is a fantastic step in furthering that agenda, however I am somewhat skeptical as I believe the media system is simply a tool of the neoliberal policy agenda, and as I understand it unless the greater economic beast is laid to rest, its pups will continue to thrive.

Extremely well researched. McChesney has been a key figure in the "media debate" and he approaches the subject with knowledge and objectivity. His disciplined, almost scientific investigation is an example of non-partisan coverage of a crucial issue. If only a few politicians were as concerned with the public interest as McChesney, we would be in a better world. I am a Mexican citizen so I couldn't care less about U.S. partisan politics, and if you care about the fate of public communications, you shouldn't either. This is a problem that affects every country, not just the U.S.A., since the big telecommunication companies are broadcasting all over the World. The interest of big advertisers is being protected by U.S. policy and their marketing messages are then blasted everywhere. Even the smallest community in the South-Mexican jungles knows Ronald McDonald. CNN has Latin editions of their biased news transmitted to most Latin countries. As an outsider, I hope the U.S. citizenry will realize that this is not an issue of Democrats vs. Republicans but a World-wide issue of the individual vs. the big corporations. In reality they don't care about your political affiliations, as long as you saturate your credit cards to buy their heavily advertised products, you can debate each other to death.

This book takes some very complicated issues and makes them easy to understand. The arguments are persuasive and well researched. I found myself getting angry at what is happening to our country and this book explains much of it. This is an interesting perspective and I hope it will start a new debate about the value of public media and spectrum as a public resource.

It's always interesting to read a Marxist view of anything to get a vastly different perspective from the usual liberal and conservative views (and the few moderate views that manage to find their way into print).

At bottom, the problem with the news media, according to McChesney, is that it's not far enough to the Left! He rejects the criticism of the media's liberal bias. This rejection is based on an eccentric use of the term "liberal". For instance, Bill Clinton and Al Gore are "moderate to conservative Democrats" (p. 102). "The Left" consists of radicals and "social democrats". (p. 103) He sees both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton as "neoliberals": "with the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan, the neoliberal moment had commenced. Neoliberal ideology became hegemonic not only among Republicans but also in the Democratic Party of Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Joseph Lieberman." (p. 49)

McChesney opposes professionalism in journalism, because professionalism "is a journalism of fact without regard to" a political ideology. (p. 67). "The claim that it is possible to provide neutral and objective news" is suspect. (p. 68) Professionalism refuses "to place every important issue in a larger political ideology." (p. 71)

He deplores the influence of corporations on news broadcasting (Don't we all?), but he also deplores NPR and PBS: "NPR and PBS at a national level tend to provide a bland variant of mainstream and conventional journalism" (p. 245). So, the root problem is that even NPR and PBS are not far enough to the Left!

He wants unlimited funding of these public media without any overseeing or accountability. (Perhaps a Constitutional Amendment--although he doesn't actually propose such a thing or say how this would otherwise be achievable.) One wonders why he is so sanguine that he would be happy with a public news broadcasting source that was not answerable to anybody. Is it because he assumes that it would be run by insiders who share his Marxist views? He would certainly not be happy with it otherwise. (See, in this connection, the film "Shattered Glass".)

Bottom line: Skip this book and buy Don't Blame the People or Freedom of the Press--for Whom?

Author makes some statements that children in a marriage will lead to unhappiness. I have two teenage daughters and they do bring unhappiness at time, but this is temporary and there behavior can be corrected, bringing joy again.

Brooks sets out to discover who is happy, and why. The information is likely to surprise you.

For one thing, "Religious people of all faiths are much, much happier than secularists" (p 44). The difference is huge. "Of those who believed there is no way to find out if God exists, a paltry 12% claimed to be very happy people" (p 46). Hmmm...no wonder Dawkins and Hitchens' books drip with unhappiness and malice.

And here's one those famous atheists will really gag on: "Religious individuals today are actually better educated and less ignorant of the world around them than secularists" (p 51).

Married people are happier than those who are single, too. Researchers studied people who seemed alike "but one is married and the other is not, the married person will be 18 percentage points more likely than the unmarried person to say he or she is very happy" (61). This will come a as a blow to the feminists.

Among the nations, North Korea is at the bottom of the happiness scale, with Cuba a close second (p 91). What, atheist communism hasn't brought happiness? Shocker.

On the other hand, mere wealth doesn't help much, once a country has achieved a decent level of health and nutrition. At least the wealth of Japan is not helping. And Mexicans are much happier, on average, than the French.

And here is one I would not have guessed: "For most Americans, job satisfaction is nearly equivalent to life satisfaction. Among those who say they are very happy in their lives, 95% are also satisfied with their jobs" (p 159).

This is a interesting and fun.

I have read 'Gross National Happiness and I am very disillusioned with it. The first few chapters provided some insights but after that it digressed into cherry picking of data and, what I believe is stretching the facts with misrepresentations and misinterpretations of the data, all to foster the author's conservative beliefs. It is really pathetic from a scientific point of view. When I finished, I was totally disgusted.

The author is supposed to be an academic (even an economist) and claims the book is research. But it is a polemic, in my view. He refers to "averages" when the distributions are clearly non-Gaussian (such as the distribution of income) so he should be using medians - "averages" is not a statistical definition - he should define it as a mean or median but I assume he uses means as they help to make his argument. He uses regression to argue causality when all it shows is a relationship (that may well be spurious). And he jumps back and forth between "findings", beliefs, personal views and "conclusions" - many of which do not logically follow.

I do not recommend this book. If I could, I would have given it zero stars.

This book was motivated by the fact although "the pursuit of happiness" is enshrined in the U.S. Declaration of Independence, "little has been done ... to find out what actually makes America a happy nation" (front inside of dustcover). The book argues that what make America happy are: political orientation, marriage, income (albeit unequal), giving to charity, and work. These are the subjects of the chapters of the book, divided into parts: "The culture of happiness" and "the economics of happiness." The latter is a misnomer for the "business of happiness."

The first part consists of four chapters and the second includes a few more chapters. While Part I focuses on non-monetary matters like family, religion, and such, Part II is mainly about the connections of happiness to money; how money can sometimes "buy" happiness; and why inequality, no matter how bad, does not prevent individual upward mobility. In the end the book concludes that happiness is a personal and internal condition; if someone wants it, he/she must work full-time for it. Among the chapters of Part II, Chapter 8 on giving to charity as "the secret of buying happiness" is simply the greatest.

The book ends with a list of prescriptions for happiness: avoiding extremism, having a religious faith, having a decent family life, serving and protecting freedom, promoting equality of opportunities for all, celebrating work, giving to charity, respecting the humanity of others including enemies, and limiting government involvement in the business of life. Some of the prescriptions derive beautifully from the analyses of the book, and some appear to be ideological afterthoughts - poorly articulated and perhaps not even necessary. But, hey, why stress the negative when the purpose of writing is to communicate thoughts freely? No one should be penalized for sharing their thoughts. A good read.

Amavilah, Author
Modeling Determinants of Income in Embedded Economies
ISBN: 1600210465
http://www.amazon.com/Modeling-Income-Determinants-Embedded-Economies/dp/1600210465%3FSubscriptionId%3D1NNRF7QZ418V218YP1R2%26tag%3Dbookfindercom0e%26linkCode%3Dxm2%26camp%3D2025%26creative%3D165953%26creativeASIN%3D1600210465

Arthur Brooks is to be applauded for writing a book with conclusions based on data. However, he wasn't able to convince me that the methodology for obtaining most of that data is a reliable indicator of happiness. When people are asked "Are you happy?" they may give you an honest or a dishonest answer, but you cannot be sure. Brooks tries to allay this concern by arguing that surveys have replicated the results, but this is still unsatisfactory. If conservatives are more likely to say that they are happy, then this, and only this, is what we can conclude: that conservatives are more likely to say that they are happy. The right question to ask, then, is not, "Why are conservatives happier?" but "Why are conservatives more likely to say they are happier?" The reason could be that they are happier. But you might pose alternative hypotheses. For example, it could be more socially acceptable in America to say that you are happy. Conservatives are more likely to obey this cultural rule. Liberals, atheists, and other cultural rebels may feel freer to break the rule. I'm not proposing this as an actual cause of the results reported in Brooks's book, but the fact that he takes people's responses at face value and doesn't dig deeper is a reason to question those results and is a bit disappointing if you were hoping for a deeper analysis.

I'm one of the readers who suspects Brooks of having a political agenda. The reason isn't simply that he finds that you are more likely to be happy if you are conservative, religious, hard-working, and family-oriented, in addition to living in a society which promotes opportunity but not economic equality, charity rather than government support of the disadvantaged, and limited government. Rather, it is because he focuses on political issues such as these, to the exclusion of other, more benign factors. Does active participation in a sport make people happy? How about owning a pet? Reading novels, shopping, watching TV, going to art museums? How about political activism, foreign travel, great cooking? And what about less benign factors? Does your happiness depend to any extent on what race you are? Why are topics like these missing from this book? By focusing on factors that support the conservative agenda, Brooks does raise suspicions about his motives.

Nonetheless, what is there is interesting, fairly light if not exciting reading, but with a few surprises thrown in.

This book should be thought of as having three sections: First, an opinionated history of Rwanda, in which Ulvin shortcuts some highly politicized debates by simply stating his opinion as to, for example, the actual origin of the Hutu and Tutsi groups. This section continues through 1994, and is the strongest part of the book. Second, the book contains a long rumination of the complicity of nongovernmental organizations and aid groups in Rwanda's racial turmoil and genocide. This would have been a good three page discussion, here spread over about 90 pages. Finally, there is a sociological examination of the roots of the Rwandan genocide. Where Ulvin points out the weaknesses in popular theories, this is worthwhile. Unfortunately, too much reads like a college paper and contains little of value for a reader.

Overall, the history section redeems the book. The book is certainly useful for those interested in Rwanda, probably less useful to those interested in racial violence generally.

Uvin's argument is not that aid workers in Rwanda participated in the genocide of 1994, nor even that they were accomplices in it. Rather, "AIDING VIOLENCE" contends that the development business--by the very nature of its mission--contributed to a state of severe inequity and "structural violence" that over many decades had made Rwanda fertile ground for widespread ethnic hatred leading to massive bloodshed.

It is the apolitical nature of aid, the author tells us, that plays into the hands of the killers and their ringleaders. The book is reminiscent of Ferguson's "ANTI-POLITICS MACHINE" in this way. Where Uvin's contribution is greatest is his ability to situate this discussion about the ramifications of "development" in the Rwandan context, with ample documentary support for his conclusions. He also isn't so naive as to think that the Rwandan genocide was somehow foisted on a passive population by an overpoweringly evil elite. Sure, they were evil, but the hundreds of thousands of Rwandans who took part in the violence had more reason to do so than simply because their leaders told them to.

This book will likely give you some serious doubts about the entire concept of development and just what it means anyway in a world rife with turmoil, inequality and discrimination. And that is precisely what Uvin intended it to do.

This book is a fascinating exploration of the last days of the Soviet Union, providing a background of the broad mix of events and people involved both before, during and after the Gorbachev era. It maps the mindset and events during this dramatic change. It is told with a direct, personal style that I found gripping, and that gives a very good sense of the societal changes and impacts. I highly recommend it.

Mr. Remnick has given us a masterwork. He seamlessly meshes intimate portraits of Soviet citizens within the larger landscape of the last days of the Soviet Empire. He has a rare ability to blend the micro and the macro in a soul-stirring narrative. This is a profound work that is filled with compelling stories. Lenin's Tomb is so superb that even those who avoid "history books" will relish it. Could not more highly recommend this book. The scads of glowing reviews below are all well deserved.

Just a quick note, I really enjoyed this book. I was an adult when the Soviet Union fell, but I was very ignorant of what was really going on. Remnick's incisive portraits of the people on both sides of the fall of Communism bring the era to life.

David Remnick writes in his book, "Once the regime eased up enough to permit a full-scale examination of the Soviet past, radical change was inevitable. Once the System showed itself for what it was and had been, it was doomed."

Gorbachev's perestroika and glasnost reforms opened Pandora's Box of freedom. Once the people experiences freedoms, they wanted more. Without a tyrant in control anymore, like Gorbachev's predecessors, nothing could hold the Soviet Empire together anymore.

I highly recommend this book. I also recommend "The Cold War: A New History" by John Lewis Gaddis," "Reagan and Gorbachev: How the Cold War Ended" by Jack Matlock (Reagan's top advisor and ambassador to USSR), "America, Russia, and the Cold War, 1945-2002" by Walter LaFeber and "The Cold War: The United States and the Soviet Union, 1917-1991" by Ronald Powaski. Also read Ronald Reagan's autobiography "An American Life." Reagan himself debunks the false claim that he destroyed the USSR. In fact, he and Gorbachev became friends and peacefully ended the cold war a few years before Gorbachev fell from power. Reagan wrote that he was concerned that his friend Gorbachev might be harmed by Soviet hardliners in a coup. He turned out to be right.

A coup was staged, but it failed. That's when the unraveling accelerated.

David Remnick's "Lenin's Tomb" is a book about the journalist's experiences just before and during the collapse of the USSR at the end of the 1980s. Using a chronological overview, Remnick describes what the Soviet Union was like under the reign of Gorbachov (or "Gorbachev" in US spelling) and his views on the various leaders, journalists, KGB officers, bureaucrats, dissidents and so on.

Because Remnick goes almost entirely by interviews for his information, the book gives a very thorough biographical view of the times, but there is very little information on the general state of the country, economic and social causes for the collapse, and so on. Remnick's tone and style are very much like those of a tabloid investigative journalist, describing people and events mostly by way of the author's opinions and what the people he interviews look and act like. This has the benefit of giving one the impression of re-living the interactions with the famous of those years, but is far too shallow for any explanatory purpose.

Additionally, Remnick has too obvious favorites among the people involved. Gorbachov is generally shown more negatively than often in the West, but that fits the overall negative appraisal given to him in Russia. But people like Yeltsin and Solzhenitsyn are praised endlessly and can practically do no wrong, even though there are serious issues with both. Sakharov in particular is elevated literally to the level of a modern saint by Remnick: he is never mentioned without describing his "saintliness", "superior morality", and so on. Now in many of the cases Remnick's qualifications of his interviewees seem deserved, but it does get annoying after a while. Better to let readers decide whom they like than to pre-ordain all this.

Overall, the book is mostly useful as a collection of interviews of important people at the end of the 1980s, and as such it is very balanced in the kind of people interviewed. It fails entirely as anything more though, and should not be used as a serious explanatory book on the hows and whys of the USSR's collapse. And that is somewhat disappointing.

I recommend this book to everyone. The information contained in this book is not only educational, but it is pertinent to the cultural battle that is underway today by liberals using activist judges to circumvent our constitution. An easy read, and a must read, and you will understand how the courts are having an effect upon you and your children, whether you realize it or not, by bypassing the legislative process to make the government do things we would never vote for in a million years.

When I bought this book I thought it was going to be about our corrupt judiciary, what is wrong with it, and how we might fix it. I was a little disappointed in the content, as from the first few pages I discovered it's more of a right hates left attack on liberalism circa the judiciary. It has more to do with how judicial decision affect party politics and how if you disagree with a verdict that judge must be an "activist." If that is what you are looking for, I recommend it.

I'm more interested in say, how judges use immunity to break the law, destroy lives, uphold blatantly unconstitutional government actions and protect their cronies while they fleece regular Americans.

In World War 2 this guy would have been known as a Kapo......sending up his own people so he can come out on top....he is unintelligent and a fabricator of hate news.
Guys like this are the very reason the US is so hated by everyone these days....buying his books and listening to him on radio only supports terrorism.

Mark Levin is one of those unmistakable specimens who first appears right in his analysis but under scrutiny quietly slides on rose-colored glasses to see what he desires rather than the whole truth. Sean Hannity is of a similar mold. Both appear as thoughtful and intelligent constitutional conservatives placing principle above politics and eternal truths over convenient pragmatism. The cultivated image these radio jockeys spend years polishing is in fact a false veneer thrown over the eyes of ordinary people who cannot see for themselves the reality through the rhetoric. Despite its bragging of impeccable conservative credentials and commitment to the truths of the Founding Fathers, the crowd of Levin, Hannity, Ingraham, and Limbaugh cheer on the Bush administration and the modern Republican Party without noting how said political forces pose and shove ideals that are contrary to their intellectual forefathers. "Men in Black" documents some obvious instances of the Supreme Court's overstepping of its constitutional authority upon relaying decisions pertaining to economics, gay marriage, foreign policy, and abortion. The book, not counting its appendices and index, is a mere 205 pages long. I could admittedly write a book twice as long that reveals the tyranny of Bush and his Republican-controlled Congress who, according to Levin, appear to be Godsend for the United States. If somebody possesses the courage and integrity to call herself a constitutional conservative, I expect consistency right down to the crossed `Ts' and dotted `Is`. The above crowd is neither courageous nor consistent. They are cheerleaders for those who actually wish to do away with our Constitution.

"Men in Black" is structurally quite messy for the work of a former cabinet adviser and chief of staff to the U.S. attorney general. The book feels like a checklist of tasks that require frenzied completion coupled with repeating injections of tempered outrage that squeals, "Judicial activism! Egads! Egregious!" Levin proclaims with joyful, tearful adoration the Bush-initiated "War on Terror" after he blames the _Supreme Court_ for abusing its authority with conjuring up rules for how immigrants can enter the United States! He correctly notes of the Constitution's grant to Congress of constructing America's immigration policy. The flaw in the argument that Levin fails to take note of is the Republican-controlled Congress' dereliction of duty by not securing the border and enforcing the immigration laws currently on the books. He chides the SCOTUS for something that Congress has ALSO failed to do for at least 20 years, and what is worse, the Congress possessed the AUTHORITY to perform this task. Levin's beloved Republican Party, which controlled Congress from 1995-2007, did not do what was constitutionally required of the Congress: secure the borders and enforce immigration laws. How does this relate to the Bush administration's "War on Terror?" The answer is obvious: a man in his home cannot expect to defend his family from an invader by leaving the door open and unlocked as he attempts to crack down on _potential_ invaders thousands of miles away from home. Meanwhile, the livid and murderous invader has already clutched the child by the throat. For a more cogent analysis of this paradox, I direct you to Constitution Party presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin`s column: http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin450.htm

The book contains intellectual contradictions that could shame the Democrats, and it would be wearisome to recount them in this review. They are not difficult to find anyway. Levin rallies against "socialism from the bench" while omitting that George W. Bush permitted the largest increase in government spending in our nation's history, surpassing even Lyndon Baines Johnson and right-wing idol Ronald Reagan, who chalked up more government debt than any other president before him combined. I do not need to say much more. Pundits and commentators on television and on radio spew drivel and half-truths for hours on end each day, which is why I do not care to submit myself to such a depressing object as the Boob Tube. The real crime of these radio shock jocks is the blatant discouraging of intellectual inquiry and careful research. Rush Limbaugh himself directs his minions to accept his words as Gospel. And I guess that's that, isn't it? You cannot really argue with the Gospel, which is why I say to the poor listeners of talk radio, "Get out while you still can!"

Mark Levin gives wonderful insight on the most important legal decisions and the men and women who wrote these decisions. He does a particularly good job in discussing Hugo Black and how his anti-Catholicism led to 'separation of church and state' entering constitutional law. He, also, gives an excellent explanation of Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist's decisions on Bush v. Gore. Also, there is a very humorous part about past judges and their tomfoolery. 'Men in Black' is an excellent read for anyone interested in law.