Feinstein Doesn't Make His Case
349850
I first heard about the punch incident between L.A. Laker power forward Kermit Washington and Houston Rocket All-Star Rudy Tomjanovich on a 25th anniversary television clip.  I was intrigued by the story.  This book was mentioned in the program so I sought it out.  The title of the book piqued my interest even more: "...The Fight That Changed Basketball Forever."  I had never heard of the punch until that 25th anniversary story.  I was 3 years old in 1977 when the event occurred and had not been very interested in basketball until the last three years.  I was definitely opening this book ignorant on the subject.  Feinstein's words and the current state of the NBA as I see it are the only pieces of evidence I have as to whether this event "changed basketball forever."
First, the good points:  Feinstein offers some description on the game in 1977 (background I needed).  I had no idea that there was enough fighting to put the NBA in almost the same league as the NHL.  I learned that only two referees oversaw the game until the following year, and it was difficult for only two to control the game.  A thorough account of the event and the aftermath is given, including some insight into the struggles of Tomjanovich's life that, I assume, have not been written in such detail before this book.  Feinstein also gives a thorough background on the lives of Washington and Tomjanovich.  In the case of Washington:  what's a good way for a PR guy to catapult the career of an otherwise unknown player?  Make up a reachable milestone like an average of 20 rebounds and 20 points per game for the season.  Washington's rise to fame was very interesting.  The book also shows that most of the animosity is between Washington and Kevin Kunnert (the player Washington blames for starting the fight that led to the punch).
Problems I find:  Like many other reviewers noted, Feinstein repeats a lot of information.  The first several chapters are a reiteration of the event and immediate aftermath.  Similar quotes are used throughout the book (I lost count of how many times Tomjanovich is quoted as saying he doesn't want to be remembered as the guy who "got nailed").  The repetitive nature of the book doesn't bother me as much as the overall style, which doesn't seem very professional to me, especially from an author of so many sports books and receiver of so much praise.  Some of the quotes he chose to use seem almost silly.  My favorite example is on page 149: "For some reason we always had trouble in the Palestra," Washington said.  "I think it may have something to do with the fact that those teams were always good."  How does he get quotes like that!
In sum, I bet this story has been written as an article in sports magazines with glossy color photos many times.  I think I'd enjoy it in article form more and probably not miss much information.  The story seemed to be stretched to fill the pages of a book.  What's more, I don't think Feinstein made his case that the event changed basketball.  The league already decided to lower the boom on violent acts before the 1977 regular season and violent behavior is still seen a lot in the NBA today with the usual fines and suspensions.  Repeat offenders like Ron Artest are praised for their intensity and "playing the game the way it should be played."  Is there another punch waiting to happen somewhere?  I hope not, but I don't think 1977 has changed much beyond the lives of those who were involved.
2002254
This is the fifth of David Griffin's books on the events of 9/11. Despite the overwhelming evidence against the official account, Dr Griffin has been criticised on the grounds that as a theologian rather than a physicist, architect or engineer, he is not qualified to question the government account. Using a similar defence, many people in Congress and the press duck and run for cover when confronted with the issue, claiming inability to comment because of a lack of the necessary technical expertise.

In his latest, incisive polemic, Dr Griffin focuses on the welter of contradictions and inconsistencies of the official story. By adopting this approach, he shows that the only way to cling to the official story is to believe that it is possible for two mutually contradictory statements to both be true.

Griffin has thus placed members of Congress and the press in an extremely awkward position. If they accept that mutually contradictory statements are consistent with the official story, they demonstrate that they are intellectually unfit for duty. On the other hand, if they continue to ignore the contradictions they show that they are morally unfit, by underlining their complicity in the coverup of the greatest mass murder in United States history.
3817684
When James Comey testified before Congress a Republican I know posted, I don't believe a word that comes out of this mans mouth. This is probably as great an injustice as Ive run across in life. She won't read this book, but she should!
1892404
"The Democrats are not what they were when your mother was a kid," says my grandmother, who is in her 70s. She voted (D) her entire life up to this last election. "Obama is not a Democrat." She said and I agreed.
I naturally found myself a conservative, however. It was a fit that I couldn't change, and believe me, I tried. Where I am from the common belief is, "We are too poor to be Republicans." But I cannot consider myself a Republican either.
Both Parties have been hijacked by a movement that, in my opinion, threatens the principles our country was founded on. And thanks to Mark Levin, and others, I am able to see this movement for what it is.
I think it was a great idea for Mark to call this movement Statism, and those who advocate for Statism, Statists. The argument is no longer about Republican and Democrat. The argument has become whether we should stand for our founding principles of freedom and liberty, or fundamentally transform our country into a European country which enjoys communism on the left and fascism on the right. I know you all have heard the Dems, especially Pres. Obama, called socialists, right? It's because they have been hijacked by the Statists whose agenda it is to push America toward a European style of government; socialists on the left and fascists on the right. The conservative, according to Levin, is almost impotent to prevent this from happening, partly because the conservative has not engaged in politics in the way the Statist has, therefore the conservative has been caught off guard like a deer in headlights. "Holy cow! What is happening to the American Way?" the conservatives are screaming in despair!
Well, it's our own D@MN fault for getting complacent, lazy, blind to what has been happening! Conservatives have fallen asleep while on guard duty. The system of checks and balances put into place by our founders are failing. That has to change! Especially since most of the Repubs who have been elected have shown us that they fully intend to allow the Statist to proceed with their plans, essentially aiding and abedding the Statist in fundamentally transforming our country's style of government.
A new name needs to be given that encompasses everyone who stands for our founding principles, because there are still Dems out there, like my grandmother, who do not agree with the Statist's agenda. But, if you've noticed, the Statist does not particularly like losing it's "useful idiots." Dems, who break away are criticized and ridiculed for thinking for themselves. Incredibly, Dems refused to acknowledge that anyone disagreeing with them has the right to do so. They cling to the collective mentality like gospel, and use all the ad hominum attacks possible to keep their numbers and marginalize the opposition.
Liberty and Tyranny lays out the Statist agenda. The main benefit of this book is how Levin contrasts the conservative from the Statist on various issues. It has been one of the most educational books I have read so far regarding progressives, which Levin has renamed Statists. The chapters on welfare, environmentalism, and immigration alone are worth buying and keeping this book. Each chapter is heavily referenced in such a format that you could go right to your computer and confirm his source in most cases. It also serves as an reading list. I have put many of the books he cited from on my own reading list.
It should be read in conjunction with The 5000 Year Leap. These two books have given me a boarder understanding of what I and my children are up against. They won't be the only books I read and they are in no way gospel for me! They are, however, a start to educating myself in an attempt to save our country from a change we were not expecting. I intend to take up the guard and pass on my experience and education to my children when it is their time to take up the guard along side me.
642737
Mr. Bolick is a skilled propagandist, but his argument is false (or, to be more precise, a half-truth).  I agree that the Slaughter-House cases was one of the worst decisions in our history (second only to Plessy v. Ferguson).  But his claim that it has something to do with "economic liberty" is FALSE.

First, a little history.  What Bolick, and other (so-called) conservatives really want is a return to the days of the "Lochner" doctrine.  This was the idea, most infamously applied in the case of Lochner v. New York that the "liberty" protected by the Due Process Clause (of both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments) did not simply refer to physical liberty (i.e.: imprisonment), or to the "liberties" specified in the Bill of Rights, but included something called "liberty of contract".  Under this rubric, the courts assumed the power to weigh the wisdom of legislation, imposing their view of what was the best public policy instead of deferring to the legislative branch of government.

The point?  If Slaughter-House (1873) prevents the courts from enforcing "economic liberty", how could the Lochner decision been rendered (in 1905)?  Thus a fundamental premise of Bolick's book is false.

Second, the "Lochner" doctrine represents the epitome of "judicial activism", something conservatives claim to oppose.  Indeed, the whole movement for "judicial restraint" arouse in opposition to that doctrine.  The essence of true judicial restraint is that the courts are not supposed to impose their opinion of what is best for the nation in the guise of interpreting or applying the Constitution.  Whether legislation is a good or bad idea is entirely a matter for the legislature to decide.  Courts applying "Lochner", in the name of "economic liberty" violated that principle constantly.  They were the true "judicial activists".

Third, it is hysterically funny to hear conservatives, who normally cry "it's not in the Constitution" when discussing principles like "separation of church and state" (which CAN be found "in the Constitution" in places such as the "no religious test clause", the First Amendment, and in the complete absence of any mention of a god or a religion in its legal provisions) suddenly turn around and claim the Constitution protects some amorphous concept of "economic liberty", when in fact it says NOTHING on that subject.

The closest the Constitution comes is in the Fifth Amendment.  Its Due Process Clause forbids depriving someone of their property "without due process of law".  But, of course, that's not an absolute prohibition.  If due process is provided (through jury trials, for example) ALL your property can be taken away.

The other Fifth Amendment "economic" limitation is on the power of Eminent Domain: the government's power to take your property for a public use (such as building a highway).  But, again, that is not an absolute prohibition.  The Takings Clause (as it is known) allows the government to take your property, but you must be paid "just compensation".

The Constitution did not enact Herbert Spencer's "Social Statics" (the "bible" of the Social Darwinism movement).  Neither did it enact John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty", or Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged".  It knows no economic system, either Capitalist or Socialist.  It is concerned with POLITICAL rights, not economic ones.

Mr. Bolick's claims are false.
2236677
I'm really torn about this book.  I am a strong advocate of the rights of the accused and no matter what someone has done they deserve a fair trial.  At the same I can think of nothing worse than butchering one's family.  While Morris makes some valid points about how unfairly MacDonald and the defense were treated, he simply fails to make a vigorous defense of MacDonald.  Now that may not be what the book is about but Morris clearly believes in actual innocence.  When you want to make an argument in favor of a position - MacDonald did not murder his family - you are OBLIGATED to take and present the best case for the opposition.  This is where Morris fails miserably.  He simply drones on and on about Helena Stoeckley while hardly addressing blood or pajama top at all.  He did NOT present and dismantle the best argument for MacDonald's guilt.  He barely presented it at all.  For this he gets a fail.  For presenting evidence that MacDonald was treated unfairly he gets a decent grade.
1587064
I'm sorry professor Dershowitz but The Case For Israel has been dismissed by reality: Israel is the oppressor and like all oppressors throughout history, it too will be overcome by the truth. The only way out for Israel is the two state solution, but even that is out of the question now because of the settlements in the west bank, and lack of political will (read: courage) in both Israel and the US to face reality in the face.
4448254
Michael Connelly has been one of my favorite writers but he just like the radical left had to insert a couple of digs at our current President.  Stick to writing and left your political views to the socialist lefties. At this point in life when money is no object, he might think he can do as he pleases, grow up and listen to your real fans.
628320
According to Levinson "The Constitution is both insufficiently democratic, [...] and significantly dysfunctional" and therefore "we should not longer express our blind devotion to it".  Levinson wants the reader to join him in a call for a new constitutional convention, and "Our Undemocratic Constitution" is the argument for that cause.  Each reader must decide if Levinson succeeds.

Levinson takes the reader through the many shortcomings, pitfalls, and inadequacies of our federal Constitution.  Regardless of opinion "Our Undemocratic Constitution is wanting, the first of which is a First Chapter.

Levinson presents the United States as "a country that professes to believe in democracy."  Unfortunately, Levinson never presents the reader with his clear idea of democracy let along explain why it is better than what the United States is - a Constitution Republic, or a "constraint" democracy (professions notwithstanding).  It has been over 150 years since the use of the phrase, "The United states ARE..." and even more years since a person called himself or herself a "Virginian" or "Carolinian".  Presidential power and federalism has grown dramatically, but can we so easily say that we are now one big country and no longer a collection of "states"?  Perhaps we can, but not without explanation.  Unfortunately, Levison provides no explanation of his democracy and why it is superior and begins his book with the assumed premise that Federalism and a more direct democracy (?) is implicitly better.

The Journey takes the reader through unequal representation, bicameralism, the Electoral College, the tenure of federal judges, and the process required to amend the Constitution.  During that journey the reader will meet some Straw men.  The potential of a "Constitutional dictatorship" as a result of a "lame duck presidency" WAS an issue before 1933, before the 20th amendment to the Constitution.  The inability to remove "disabled president" is noteworthy before 1967 and before the ratification of the 25th amendment, but not today.  Levison freely admits this to be the case, yet still presents these as argument to throw out the baby because the bathwater WAS dirty 40 years ago.

The journey is filled with many, perhaps too many, assumed premise, "I suspect that most person are unconvinced..." pg 65, "one could easily read..." pg 71 "If one reads...which is certainly the most plausible reading, then it could well be..."pg 72 "It should be obvious that..." pg 87.  "Easily read", "most plausible", "obvious that?  Perhaps...but not without more.

Our Undemocratic Constitution does a fine job of shining the light on many aspects of our Constitution that are wanting.  Levinson writes for the layman.  It is because of this that Levinson should be more cautious and provide the reader with a first Chapter and more than the 180pg that are presented.

Levinson fails to address the many counter arguments to his position that exist both today and in 1787.  He also fails to sufficiently differentiate between dirty bathwater and a dirty baby.  Our Undemocratic Constitution addresses the dysfunctional of our current constitution without discussing what a future constitution and the process of getting there might look like.  This is a deliberate choice by Levinson, but by doing so Levinson avoids the hardest task of all, addressing the arduous task of getting 300,000,000 people from 50 states to agree.  Perhaps the words of Benjamin Franklin, following the singing of the "current" Constitution, provides a critical question for a reader:

"I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution: For when you assemble a Number of men to have the Advantage of their joint Wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men all their Prejudices, their Passions, their Errors of Opinion, their local Interests, and their selfish Views..."  September, 17th, 1787
2730630
To read mactans' review of the book with its glowing quotes by the trial judge (see his review with quotes from the judge), one would think that Irving won his suit. He didn't. Just as Irving selects bits of source documents and claims they absolve Hitler and the Nazis of the atrocities they are accused of, mactan gives only part of the story. Remember, Irving sued Lipstadt. He not only wanted damages, he wanted HER BOOK REMOVED FROM CIRCULATION. Talk about a dangerous precedent. Lipstadt did not say that Irving should not partake of his first amendment rights. As far as I know, she did not call for his books to be removed from library and bookshelves. Irving apologists want to frame the case as a dangerous attempt to sqaush a valid interpretation of history. Coming to different conclusions based on historical source material is not the issue here- misrepresenting source material to support a pre-existing bias or prejudice is. The same is true for book reviews.
1089316
Agree or disagree with his policies he has been on the right side of history since he started. He believes he's doing right by the people and therefore won't be in the (D) (R) politics or oligarchs.
4217085
Does Israel abide by international law? Do the Jews have the right to a state in Palestine? Did Israel cause the Palestinian refugee problem? Is Israel overly aggressive and excessively repressive? What is the biggest obstacle to peace in the Middle East? How can the conflict end?
These are some of the questions that Alan Dershowitz, of Harvard Law School, attempts to answer in "The Case for Israel." But, first, why does this case need to be made? Mr. Dershowitz believes there is a systematic attempt to misrepresent the facts of the Middle East conflict in order to tilt public opinion in favor of the Palestinians; thus, debate in the media and (particularly) in academia is all too often biased against Israel.
So what are these facts that are being distorted? Mr. Dershowitz, for one, challenges the presumption that Jews are foreigners to Palestine. The role that other Arab countries have played in prolonging the misery of the Palestinians is another of his targets, as is the responsibility that the Palestinians bear for the failure of the two-state solution to come to fruition (the two state solution is inevitable, Mr. Dershowitz believes). The singling out of Israel for vices that it does not commit or that others commit in far greater lengths is another theme that stands out.
Rarely do books take on so widely held views so openly and directly. The referential style of the book helps the reader navigate easily; but anyone who reads it cover to cover cannot fail to notice some repetition (including the usage of the same quote multiple times). Producing a book that balances the pro-Palestinian side of the argument is a daunting task but one at which Mr. Dershowitz has succeeded admirably. This book cannot be absent from anyone's reading list on the Middle East, though newcomers to the topic might find it more rewarding than veterans of the conflict.
3520073
Dashile has set out the problem and outlines areas of cocern but he does not give a lot of answers.  This is not the man who is going to change healthcare.  The prome problem is rising costs and he gives no answer as to how he will control them.  If this is our new health czar we are in trouble.
3933329
Please - a real figure skaing fan wants to see skating not Michael Feinstein hamming it up.  Very disappointed in this DVD.  This seems to be a trend - guess the real fans aren't protesting enough!!
3005582
As I read this book I found it ironic that while the author spoke of the dangers of judicial activism, which I totally agree with, he doesn't see his own desire to shape the country to his own personal philosophy. I was bothered with the ability of Levin to articulate the virtues of strict interpretation of the Constitution on one hand as he advocates the Supreme Court's decisions that satisfies his own bias.

I do feel that there is an illegitimate movement to use the judiciary to change America toward a more liberal, socialistic model however; I wonder how Mr. Levin would feel if the court did the opposite and used their actions to bring about a conservative variety. After reading this book I have a strong feeling that he wouldn't complain much. His mind-set explains why activist use the courts as they do, because if they don't, he and his kind would. Some would say that this tug of war over the Constitution is a way of balancing it but I would disagree. I don't think the framers meant for that to be the case. When purchasing this book I was hoping for wisdom on the proper use of the Supreme Court as equilibrium between the branches of government but that desire was left unsatisfied.
3241656
Proof by omission appears to be the main point of this book. Although Donahue makes a compelling case that the fatal shot that killed President Kennedy came from one of his Secret Service Agents, and that he spent so much of his time researching the case, he fails to prove his supposition that Oswald's first shot deflected off of the pavement of Elm Street, fragmented, and subsequently hit the President. The President's first reaction to the shooting (according to Donahue) was that shrapnel hit him and that he (the President) exclaimed that "My God, I'm hit") which is in and of itself questionable.

But, since Donahue is such an expert, and that he KNOWS that Oswald's first shot hit behind the Presidential car and subsequently injured the President, where is the proof? Having read the entire book, he neglects to point out that there are NO bullet strikes on Elm Street that would support his case. No where in the book is even any mention that such a bullet strike hit the pavement or left a mark. Given the extensive investigation following the assassination, it only seems reasonable that a bullet that hit the pavement and then fragmented would necessarily leave its mark in the street. Yet he never mentions that in the book.

This is simply another book that attempts to address an American tragedy where one disaffected loser killed a President.
1108359
There are a number of problems with this opinion.  First, the separation of powers issue.  The U. S. Supreme Court has no constitutional authority to legislate from the bench, which it did here.  Congress could have easily dumped Roe v Wade along time ago if it truly wanted to.  Giving a woman an absolute right to an abortion in the first trimester, a qualified right in the second trimester and no right in the third is legislation, plain and simple.

Second, if, as the opinion states, that "we need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins," then on what basis are they reaching a conclusion about the consequences of the unborn that impacts its due process rights?

Third, why should the woman's right to privacy supercede and have priority over an unborn person's right to life?

Fourth, where is the due process that is supposed to precede the taking away the right to life?

Fifth, if a man must pay child support, why doesn't he have veto power over an abortion?  This shows that women have more rights than men, as well as more rights than their unborn children.

Sixth, the opinion claims to conform with the common law, yet, according to the common law, as narrated by Sir William Searle Holdsworth, the unborn fetus is a human being.  For example, with regard to the The Rule Against Perpetuities it is well established that a child en ventre sa mere (Latin for "In his mother's womb") is a life in being at the death of the testator. This creates an extension of the period recovered by the Rule to 21 years and period of gestation.  In trust law, In the area of trusts, where the en ventre sa mere doctrine also applies, upon the father's death, a child may be an income recipient of the father's trust before it is born.  According to Doe v. Clarke, an unborn fetus is a "child living."  The American case Crisford v. Starr a fetus can take an estate in remainder as if already born.  So, on the contrary, the common law never supported Roe v Wade.

Seventh, Roe v Wade dissents from over 2000 years of the holding that a fetus is a person since the oath of Hippocrates, which prohibited abortion.

Eighth, International law prohibits abortion and recognizes the right to life.  Article 6 of the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, prohibits the execution of the death penalty pronounced against a pregnant woman.  The American Convention of Human Rights,1978, declares (Article 4) that  "Every person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life."

So, why was Roe v Wade written?  We get our answer from the current Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who said recently, legalizing abortion with the 1973 Roe. v. Wade case would eliminate undesirable members of the populace, or as she put it "populations that we don't want to have too many of." Her remarks, are published in the New York Times came in an interview with Emily Bazelon titled, "The Place of Women on the Court."

Well, now Blackmun and the other six are undesirables God doesn't want in heaven.