Surprisingly Good--and I am Such an Anti-Republican
933799
This was a surprisingly good book. Cheney wrote a page turner, as a matter of fact, that is, until the end. More about the end later.

Cheney places Madison in his time, from his college days, through the political  background of the Revolutionary War, the Constitutional Congresses, and three Presidents (Washington, Jefferson, and his own).

In writing of the two political parties, she was definitely in the "Republican" camp, though she makes a point of saying those early Republicans were not from the 19th c. Republican Party. In any case, I certainly believed what Madison had to say (through Cheney's pen!) about the Federalists.

I found the biography entertaining and a page-turner (as I said previously) until I got to the war of 1812. It could have been my aversion to war in general, but I found the catalogue of events boring. And after Madison's tenure was over, it really dragged. Was Cheney tired of the subject? Was her deadline looming? So, in effect, I award the first 3/4 five stars, the last part 1 star for facts, and the pictures at the end another star. 3.5
2626537
I don't normally read political books from republicans, but I happened to run across Chris' blog recently and enjoyed his writing, so I figured I'd give the book a try. I wasn't disappointed; the book is well-reasoned and Chris offers several insights I hadn't previously considered.

The first point that really grabbed me was the idea that teachers are the reason democrats are more interested in actually governing. Both major parties have a number of special interest groups that can be counted on for support, but the democrat's supporters include teachers and other government workers - groups that have a vested interest in a government that functions well. The republicans don't have equivalent groups, and many of their supporters would actually prefer that government not work well; thus, republicans have much less incentive to do a good job governing.

Much of the book is Chris' ideas for policy. As an old-style conservative, he advocates for a small, yet strong government that takes on fewer tasks but does those tasks well. While I certainly don't agree with him on everything, I found many of his points convincing. The book ends with an argument that politicians have become less accountable due to reduced participation in public (not necessarily political) groups, and a call for more community participation outside of voting - be it the PTA, a neighborhood meetup, or something explicitly political - with the goal of reducing extremism by making politicians again geek approval from community-minded interests.

Overall, a good read that I certainly recommend.

Note: this review was originally written for Vulcan Ears Book Reviews (vulcanears.com). I obtained this book through Kindle Unlimited.
2098622
I'm not american, although I live here.
I want to get that out up front, because the fact that a lot of america could put aside the constitution simply because "their" side won the supreme court decision is baffling to me. All americans lose if democracy here doen't work. I am angry for america, and I cannot understand why the media here (it never really dropped off the radar afterward in europe) let this pass.
Bugliosi does a great job of analyzing the steps that got the US to that position. His outrage is clear, but he doesn't descend into the name-calling, demonizing filth that came out from both sides after the election. He's no author - the language is often dry and isn't as engaging as I expected. But he is a lawyer, and explains clearly and simply the facts as they happened.
His analysis of what he interprets as mistakes by Gore's lawyers are interesting and heart-aching if he is correct, and his descriptions of the 5 conservative judges reasons for their votes are absolutely infuriating.
For further reading on the injustice that came to pass in that election 'decision' I suggest Greg Palasts "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" for the racist nuts-and-bolts of how little brother Jeb delivered Florida, and Mark Crispin Miller's "The Bush Dyslexicon" for how the media covered up/were biased/ignored it.
Bush's continuing to act as if the american people had actually given him a mandate for sweeping conservative reforms gives a new meaning to the words "bare faced cheek". The whole episode was sad (IS sad), and the more people realize this the better america will be.
Kudos to Bugliosi and the ever-impressive "The Nation" for printing him.
1704421
This book was my introduction to American politics, and I've never needed another. I was 21, Scottish, and couldn't believe what I was reading. Were people over there REALLY allowed to write things like: "Hubert Humphrey is a contemptible old fraud?" Never mind that he makes the case brilliantly? If you think American politics has only recently become deranged, you need this book to convince yourself that no - it's always been exactly this weird.

And besides, just imagine what he has to say about a rally in an NFL stadium where whole cows are being barbequed right on the Astroturf while rows of Uncle Sams pranced about, overcome with joy. HST perhaps aggrandizes his closeness with Nixon a bit (and is rather naively impressed with Nixon's rather average NFL knowledge), but he also defines and describes the weird machine that is American politics about as well as anyone has.
1783677
As a late guest to the Anjunabeats party, I am going through the albums quickly, and somehow I overlooked this one. I suppose that a couple of distracted listening didn't catch my attention the way some of the other albums did, but I am writing this to emphatically express how stupid I was, and how good this album is. I am just in complete awe.
4105007
I received this book and read it cover to cover in 2 days...  I couldn't put it down.  First of all, I was laughing harder than I've ever laughed for political satire, and I had at least two good laughs on every page.  Secondly, Franken blows big gaping holes in the arguements and even the ideas of modern day neo-conservative icons such as Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reily, Bernie Goldberg, Sean Hannity and the rest of those Media Elite who are constantly screaming and griping about the Media Elite.  Really, if every hard core republican would read this book, and check the facts, they would undoubtably at least have to abandon their party (if not their ideals).  A good laugh for liberals, a good education for conservatives.
1281534
surprisingly good, i wanted to try and see and very pleased
1387245
Mary Katharine Ham and Guy Benson's book "End of Discussion" on the left wing's movement to surprise right wing ideas and debatable topics by labeling them racist and behind the times is poignant, refreshing and daringly funny.

Ham and Benson's book discusses why libertarian ideas, such as having people pay for things they want to have and responsible behavior, is going out of style.  It is not because we do not want to discuss these topics of debate, but because we want to; do so and are immediately slammed for bigotry and/or hatred.  Real issues that have affected the political campaigns of President Obama, Paul Ryan are delicately dismantled in their discussion.  The writers Ham and Benson also deal  with college politics, abortion, and gun rights supporters in this book, and even the death of Joan Rivers (?!?) and the way she handled comments that were not not politically correct does not escape their eye.

Overall the book was thought provoking and debate ready. The way Conservatives sometimes seem not in line with reality was not dealt with at all.  I agreed with 90% of what the authors said-although I think that  right wingers sometimes get what they deserve in terms of being shamed by popular culture.  Conservatives today don't emphasize what moderate Americans would like to hear-they don't talk about lower taxes and less governmental control over their life.  Instead, they stress morality and their opinion of what is right in regards to other people's behavior.  As an American, I don't care about what religion people are, or what people do behind closed doors, or what people chose to do with their bodies.  I care about not having Big Brother watch over me, and not having to pay for a bunch of social programs that enable people to continue their downward spiral. I wish some of how the conservative parties are out of touch with what most moderate Americans want had been addressed, but it was not.

What was most helpful was the end, with the advice they give on what is wrong with how people interact with one another today, and how we should deal with disagreements.  This is in the section on "End of Discussion" on page 272 and is entitled "Advice, Sort of." This gives great advice on how to say your opinions and how to stick to them, and to not be bullied into silence.

Really, this is an excellent, hilarious although slightly depressing book to me, because it reminded me of the ways this country has changed over time.  Our country was founded on libertarian principles by incredible political geniuses, and now it seems to have degraded into a country in which we only care about what other people think and not what is right.  A great book that will make you think this summer.
1164786
I literally just got back from seeing this movie not more than fifteen minutes ago at a local film festival; the fact that my first order of business is to write a review is a testament to how much it impressed me.  I heard it mentioned only in passing some time ago and decided to look into it, and since the showing happened to be on a day when I had little else to do, I thought, well, why not?  Good choice on my part.

I confess:  I thought that I knew what to expect from this film.  I mean, it's about a misguided gay man being sent to a Christian reformation program to cure him of his "sexual brokenness."  Clearly lots of horrible things were going to happen!  However, I was very much surprised for the better.  I laughed, I found myself with watery eyes, and the audience even collectively gasped at one point.  There are no "bad" people in this movie.  Each character is weighed fairly and fleshed out into real, believable, understandable human beings, and I sympathized with each of them in a different way.  And even though the film opens with contrasting images of a sex scene and an evangelical church congregation singing a hymn, this movie is by no means about gratuitous sex or pitching ideologies against one another with the aim of making one side look terrible.

I would have appreciated more attention being given to Mark's actual transformation inside "Genesis House"--the transition from him as a confrontational, unstable wreck to a well-manned and well-groomed member of the group happens abruptly and largely without explanation--but the film could only contain so much, and the great attention that was given to the exploration of human interaction and relationships made up for it.

"Save Me" has claimed a very early spot on my Wish List.  I can't wait for it to be released.
2570746
As a university-trained and licensed financial professional, I fully accepted the monetary status quo. Like most people, I probably would have never given the Federal Reserve System a second thought if I had not been drawn into libertarian political philosophy, based in large part by my appreciation for what I considered "the free market."

When I first encountered anti-Fed arguments, it did not make me abandon the views of the Wall Street Journal (to which I faithfully subscribed) or Kudlow & Company (which was set on "Season Pass" on my TiVo), but rather, I steadfastly defended the Fed in the face of largely baseless and inaccurate attacks by people who had watched Freedom to Fascism and skimmed through The Creature from Jekyll Island. These people were so irrational and so flat-out wrong, that I dismissed Ron Paul's monetary views as crankery and thought he was a good candidate "in spite" of his monetary views.

I doubt I ever would have read this book if not for the fact I was contracted to write a series of articles about gold and silver, one of which was to be about Ron Paul's monetary-policy views.

I read this book in one sitting and it was like a kick in the stomach. It is a very odd experience to realize that everything you believed was horribly wrong in a matter of two hours or so.

What makes this concise little book so excellent is that (1) it doesn't deal in conspiracy theories, and (2) it is backed up by solid free-market economic principles. Ron Paul's view at the time was to instate a gold-coin standard, but he was also open to free-market money and free banking. Now, he's pretty much dropped the former and instead argues exclusively for the latter. He never, as Aaron Russo does in Freedom to Fascism, advocates greater government (as opposed to Fed) control of the printing presses -- the nightmare scenario that's causing 12-million-percent inflation in Mugabe's Zimbabwe. This was my main hang-up when I was defending the Fed -- I thought the alternative was greater government control, which is what many of the right-wing conspiracy kooks advocate!

Secondly, this book -- in a little over 50 pages -- answers all of the objections to monetary gold that I had (and most university-brainwashed finance students will have), such as the ridiculous (I see now) idea that moderate inflation promotes economic growth and a stable money supply is deflationary. A third great thing about the book: It gives a very brief, but informative, history of money and banking in the United States.

The only negative thing I can say about the book is that Ron Paul's predictions at the time this was written, turned out to be way off. Thus, this book would be easily "discredited" by neocons and liberals and used to defend the inflationary system, since the ills Dr. Paul saw in the future did not come to pass in the 80's. But 2008 is a lot different from 1978, what with China and the euro and another thirty years of monetary expansion. I think Ron Paul will, sadly, be proved right in his dire predictions, even if his timing was off by three decades.
1909270
I've never watched Masters Of Horror because I don't have cable but I have picked up a few episodes on DVD and "Homecoming" was the latest.  Joe Dante has had a pretty so-so career lately but this episode not only surprised me by its subject matter but also by how good it was.  I'm not sure whether to take this as a black comedy or an all-out slap against the current administration and its war, but either way I liked it a lot and I applaud Joe Dante for throwing it out there.  Seems as though veterans of a war (unnamed, of course, but we all know what it is) are rising up from the grave to....VOTE?  Yep, to vote, and not for the current president, either.  Too bad they were lied to and their votes didn't count, though, I'd hate to think about what happened later.  And for those who take this as an insult to our soldiers and our country, etc?  So don't watch it, there's plenty of John Wayne movies on DVD.  4 out of 5.
3335101
Obviously, as the title of the book implies, there is a significant partisan component here. You will find much to like if your political views align with Krugmans, and much to disagree with if you dont. I enjoyed this book quite a bit, so take this review with a grain of salt, I guess if you generally find yourself disagreeing with him.

Krugman is a highly engaging writer. He manages to be both breezy and serious at the same time, and someone without a modest economics background will still find the book easily accessible. Once of the strengths of this book is its methodical approach to storytelling. The first portion of the book is a historical review of movement conservatism, including some interesting demographic comments on the switch of the South from historically voting D to now voting R. At every turn, numerous quotations and data are supplied. I was surprised, for example, to learn of the verbal support given to Generalissimo Franco by William F. Buckley in National Review. I guess I have the hindsight of history uncovering Francos perpetrated atrocities, but yeesh. Krugman makes a compelling case that there is a correlation between income inequality and partisanship, and that it is the Republicans who have veered to the right, rather than the Democrats veering to the left that is the root of our recent divisive Congresses. Particularly instructive in his case is a chart showing the propensity to cross party boundaries to vote for bills, and the lack thereof during the Gilded Age (pre-New Deal) and now, whereas in the post-New Deal era (approximately the 50s through the early 70s), there was a significant amount of crossover and bipartisanship, along with a general sense that the country was doing alright.

The latter part of the book is where he provides his vision for how we (Americans, and Liberals) could get back on track. This includes enacting universal health care and confronting income inequality. These present great rallying cries (admittedly, for *both* parties), and are one of the best parts of the book, because hes looking forward rather than back. The history part is great to be sure, but the last few chapters are actionable, and I was glad that the book included a to do list of sorts, that he wasn't just lamenting a change but suggesting meaningful ways to correct problems.

Unfortunately, one weakness of this book is that it is a bit dated. Written in 2007, you catch glimpses of his thoughts on the future (now our recent past), and you wish that he would go back and update the book to take the last 6 years or so into account, particularly now that we have a new, albeit very different from what he suggests, health care law. He has somewhat done so in other books hes written, particularly End This Dpepression NOW!, published in 2012. In general, they form a nice set of bookends on the recession and financial crisis of 2008-2009.

As I said at the outset, your enjoyment of this book will probably depend to a large degree on your political leanings, and that will undoubtedly color your thoughts on whether you believe him. If you're willing to listen and give him a chance, the book will not disappoint. The historical chapters are quite good, and theres a clear plan at the end.
2207882
I discovered that instead of an independent,  I am a Lincoln, T. Roosevelt, Eisenhower Republican. Here's to intelligent, compassionate, fact-based young people willing to make all Americans free again.
1664562
I'd like to say up front here that this is one of those reviews where I am struggling so hard to put thoughts into words, because of how many thoughts I have, and how difficult it is for me to express them. I grew up as a staunch Republican in rural Idaho, and never really came into contact with anything that challenged my beliefs. I graduated high school in 2000, worked a few jobs here and there, still in rural Idaho, and then after 9/11 I joined the military, where I was surrounded by many like-minded people.

I voted for McCain in 2008, and then Romney in 2012, and felt a crushing defeat at both losses. I hated the Obamas, and all the news stations I watched, and people I talked to, reinforced that hatred. And then, about a year after his second election, I woke up. I took off the blinders, and realized that through and through, I was a Democrat. All the things I cared about in life, despite my Republican upbringing, were things the Democrats cared about as well, and I jumped in with both feet. I got involved in politics for the first time in my life beyond presidential voting. I became an activist for several issues that mattered the most.

And I absolutely fell in love with the Obamas. Such advocates for equality and change, and Obama himself, instead of the fiend I'd thought him, turned out to be a calm voice in the face of panic. A steady leader in the face of fear. He was funny and personable, and every time I heard him speak I felt suddenly prouder and more patriotic. I looked at him, and thought yes, THIS is what America stands for! And then shortly after that, I realized I was only going to have him as MY president, for three years. Just three. Because all the rest of that time I wasted being blind and hateful. I had been robbed, and it was utterly heartbreaking!!!

I couldn't afford this book. I tried my local library first, then drove straight to Barnes and Noble when the library didn't have it, and stayed to read it there... And it was wonderful. It was to me, especially, because of how many years I lost. How many stories I missed. How much time I'll never get back. He should have been "my" president all along, and losing him, and his family, after so little time, has made my struggle this last year all the greater. I'm not really the kind that normally runs off to scrounge around for books they can't afford, but this is the second photography book of the Obamas I've done so for, and it captured my heart as much the second time, as it did the first.

UPDATE: Thanks to so many of the kind, heartwarming offers, I have received a copy of this book. Thank you, to those who offered, and to the ones who sent it. I am so grateful and honored.
1643692
I was rather shocked at how good this is. I couldn't wrap my head about the blurbs. The idea of a book about an intersexual person sounded like it would be a political or medical diatribe, or possibly a whiny "poor me" tale falsely disguised as fiction. I realized Jeffrey Eugenides was not writing his personal story, but I did have the idea that this was still somehow a disguised bit of biography -- perhaps it is. If I was a real book reviewer, I'd have to look that up, but I'm not. No matter its origins, it doesn't read like any of these usually disguised things, and it's really very good.

Funny as could be, almost every line is quotable. This is more of an historical novel than just one person's story. It's a family story that is more vital to the man telling it than most. Cal ne Calliope Stephanides is proof of a family secret in his very being. It will take a trip across the ocean at the end of the Greco-Turkish War and the accidents of love in the close-knit Detroit community for the secret to reveal itself. Even then Calliope is a child and hasn't been educated to the multitudinous ways genetics and gender (nevermind sexuality) can play out. So this is a very original coming-of-age story, a medical history, the story of forbidden love and much more in just over 500 pages of stunning prose.

Marvelously detailed, interesting and well-researched, with decent and realistic portrayals of all genders, from the roaring twenties through the twenty-first century, love and marriage, Detroit, and America/Americans broadly, Eugenides is a smart writer with a warm, welcoming voice. The word most likely to describe it would be "charming." While occasionally I got sniffy about some of the ease with which Cal seemed to make his decisions, it would have turned into a fake memoir if we went through every painstaking detail. He seemed a bit naive at times, then Eugenides would have him say something about his upbringing or family to remind me that he, in fact, was naive. Kids were much more naive in pre-internet days, or if not naive, often just plain confused or wrong. Cal is clearly not the type who would pour out his feelings anyway. When I know a character well enough to know why she does or doesn't do things, it's usually a good sign the writer has gotten his story and his characters under my skin.

I can see why Oprah picked Middlesex for her book club years ago. The voices are all supremely individual and Cal is a charming narrator, but Cal - while being the main character - is almost incidental to the overall story in some ways. I wish I'd read this with a group, because the discussion could go on forever. This is one of those books I knew I "should" read, and I didn't really have much interest. It didn't sound appealing, but I passed it on a shelf at the library last week and obviously picked it up. A different copy will find itself in my home soon, because I will certainly want to read it again and urge others to do the same. So, hey you - if you've not read it, take the leap. It's so much better than it sounds.
2722151
While reading this book, I realized something.  For the first time in years, I was proud to be a Democrat.  I've never regretted my political choice, but it had been a long time since I felt this good about it.  Joe Conason rebuts ten major conservative myths with solid facts and excellent writing.  Some of you may have read my earlier review of "Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies"  The format of "Big Lies" is similar to that, but this book does a much better job, going in-depth on each myth, why it's so prevalent, and why it's dead-wrong.  Mr. Conason obviously did a lot of research for this book, providing twenty pages of references in support of his points.  His research is the cause of my one complaint with the book, however, since he does make some statements without any supporting documents.  This is a little annoying, since he obviously understands the importance of backing up his words with evidence.

This should be required reading for every Democrat in the country, and is highly recommended for thinking Republicans, too, even if you don't agree with most of what he says.  A great read.
2465692
"Dangerous" was so much better than I expected.  I like Milo because he's smart, un-PC, and fabulous, and I certainly expected his book to be entertaining, but it's also really informative.  One chapter in particular gave me very helpful insight into my parent's generation and why they're so staunchly, misguided-ly liberal.  He includes a lot of practical advice, and arms his readers with plenty of facts and well-reasoned arguments with which to debate leftist ideas.  And, of course, the few penis jokes he makes are really quite funny.  I laughed out loud many times.  An excellent read overall.