The coupon section alone is worth buying the book -- if you're skeptical about trying a restaurant or a menu item, you can rest easy knowing that you're not paying full price like the diners around you. And, unlike the diners around you, you know exactly what you're eating!

Healthy food + discount food = A happy, healthy diner.

If you're like me, and you: live in San Diego, love to eat out, and are concerned about eating healthy, do yourself a favor and BUY THIS BOOK!!!

Ms. Hill certainly can spin a tale. It's interesting tocontrast Anita Hill in 1997 to the Anita Hill we were presented backin 1991.

Is this the same Anita Hill who told the Judiciary Committee that her only motivation was to tell the truth, and that she would not profit financially from the Clarence Thomas situation? She also categorically denied that she would profit from any book deals.

Fast forward to 1997. Anita Hill has this book on shelf and another in the works. She commands speaking fees in the thousands per speech. What does this say about her credibility? Perhaps "Speaking Truth to Power" should be reclassified as fiction.

I actually looked over my shoulders, when I glanced through this book, before buying it, because I had decided that so many people around me demanded my opinion of this tragedy.

When I watched the hearing, while I sat next to others, for whatever reason I waited to say whether or not I believed Dr. Hill. I wanted to process it all, in the privacy of my own space.

Watching her, on many levels I related to her. Yet, I had some unanswered questions that reading this book, along with other books that reference this tragedy helped me to make my own decisions about what happened.

Dr. Hill put a voice to many of the challenges that I had, as professional African-American woman, who wanted to speak about many issues that too high a number of African-Americans refused to communicate. Before reading this book, I wanted to be free to speak against some socialized rules that I grew up with, that are common in African-American families. But, I wanted to communicate that I am proud of being African-American.

And as a result of reading this book, I gained tremendous courage to fully live my life's mission, which is to guide women and girls to earn trust in themselves.

To this day, as a journalist, if an editor argues against Anita Hill, I refuse to write for that paper.

Thank you, Dr. Hill.

Anyhow, I thought that after the hearings were over, Anita Hill went back home to Oklahoma and went on with her life, the ordeal forgotten. After reading this book, I had no idea that Hill endured further harassment from students at the university where she taught, faculty, the media, and people who never knew her nor she them. It was downright outrageous and disgusting.

Hill writes eloquently about her roots, her upbringing in Oklahoma, her years at Yale Univ. Law School, and her job at the EEOC where she worked under Clarence Thomas and the harassment she endured from him, her subsequent career change all the way up until the hearings. It's all interesting and worth reading.

Anita Hill is the catalyst for which the laws of sexual harassment have changed and claims for which are now taken very seriously. It is very unfortunate that she had to take such torment and emotional brutality as a result of it, as if harassment from Thomas wasn't enough in and of itself.

That Thomas is now sitting on the highest court in the land for life, knowing the content of his character and demeanor, is indeed disturbing. But I hope that deep inside he is sorry and feels the utmost remorse and guilt for his mistreatment of Anita Hill and all his other victims.

The truth always come out - maybe not today or tomorrow - but eventually it does. Thomas knows what he did, and the world knows what he did despite his "categorical" denials.

It is my hope that Anita Hill finds the peace and happiness she deserves. Her life will never be the same, as she herself admits, but unfortunately almost all movers and shakers's lives were and are forever changed.

An insightful and honest book, I recommend it highly.

The book is well written and seems to be thoroughly researched. There are copious end notes detailing the sources the authors used, and the interviews they were granted. The authors leave no doubt that they believe that Anita Hill was sexually harassed. They also believe that Clarence Thomas should not be a supreme court justice. Perhaps someone better informed than I would be less easily persuaded, but I found their arguments convincing. That however is not the reason to read this book.

This book is worth reading for the amazing story of how aggressive and well organized the Republicans were, and how inept and naive the Democrats were. The Republicans spared no effort in organizing a national campaign to get their nominee approved, despite the fact that his only qualification was ambition. The cynicism is astounding. The Democrats on the other hand had no idea what was going on till it was too late. Even when Anita Hill presented them with an opportunity to derail the nomination of the reactionary Thomas they were too timid and passive to take advantage of it. The result was that the unqualified Thomas is now a supreme court justice, and Hill was savaged in the hearings.

The changes in the perception of sexual harassment as a result of these events are only briefly discussed. I would have liked to see more discussion of the after effects, and less of Thomas record at the EEOC.

This chronicle of the Thomas nomination places the Bush and Reagan administratons in an extremely unattractive light. However, as the two authors are senior editors with the "Wall Street Journal" this cannot be dismissed as a one sided liberal diatribe. "Strange Justice" is fair and balanced, and gives appropriate "credit" to the democrats for their timidity in failing to respond to the many opportunities to prevent Thomas's confirmation. There was bittersweet justice in that many of the "moderate" democrats who negotiated with the Bush administration due to imminent relection concerns ultimately ended up being defeated by constituents disgusted by their acquiescence in having allowed Thomas's approval.

"Strange Justice" does engage in a bit of pop psychology, drawing conclusions regarding how Thomas's childhood and career have molded his political philosophy. In summary, they describe an unhappy childhood resulting in a bitter, warped man with an immense chip on his shoulder. However, the Republicans made his origins fair game by selling Thomas on the basis of his noble, modest origins and "remarkable" success story. The authors are considerably more generous to Anita Hill, whose questionable judgement they attribute to naiviete. However, they also make a convincing case regarding an understandable reticience to respond to sexual harassment, as evidenced by the shameful way she was slandered by machinery of the Bush administration.

This is an important and chilling book. Unfortunately, it only leaves you more cynical about the machinations of our government.

Phelps tells the truth in that this entire fiasco was NOT about sexual harassment, it was NEVER about sexual harassment, but it was all about the abortion issue and the possibility that Thomas was pro-life and might overturn Roe v. Wade. Phelps does a good job of giving down the middle reporting about the conservative movement's obsession for making up for the sinking of the nomination of Robert Bork in 1987. There was no doubt that that tarnishing was still solid in the mind of conservatives in 1991.

Phelps, however, is on less stable ground when trying to portray Clarence Thomas as a right-wing sex nut. Phelps, of course, was the one who had the confidential FBI file leaked to him and blew this whole thing out of proportion. It was actually Phelps who caused the entire dilemma because he was interested in making a name for himself. After all, Phelps did say, "a reporter could make a career by sinking a Supreme Court nominee."

It also becomes obvious that while admitting that everyone he talked to who was friends with either Thomas or Hill found the charges against each one impossible to believe, Phelps decides to covertly imply that Thomas was willing to perjure himself to make it to the High Court.

Phelps also delves in dirt by stating that the first President Bush was a man who "played politics with race and worried about integrity later." Did Bush play politics with Thomas' nomination? Of course. He put the Democrats who supported affirmative action in the position of defending or admitting it was wrong. But did the Democrats also play politics with Thomas' nomination as well as his life? Yes. The simple fact that Phelps didn't want to report is that BOTH political parties play "the race card" when it suits them.

I cannot recommend this book without recommending David Brock's rebuttal, "The Real Anita Hill." Some will point out that Brock has renounced it, but he has yet to name even a single person who misinformed him. Brock's motives were no purer than Phelps', but he writes well versed on the issue.

The first 300 pages are rather interesting, as they cover the incidents of the Philadelphia Teamsters racketeer trials, the Warren Commission and up to election to the U.S. Senate, in addition to Specter's life. We gain insight as to how he was raised, in what he believes - in other words, what formed his character to get him from his birthplace in Kansas to the Capitol. It's enjoyable, enlightening reading.

Something happens when he gets to the Senate, though - and we learn that the name of this book is not "Passion For (The Whole) Truth," or even "Arlen Specter's Opinions."

Of the many controversial topics that have occurred in Washington D.C. in the last 17 years, we study four in this book: the investigation of the Ruby Ridge incident, the nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court, the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court, and the impeachment of Clinton. All were strongly contested partisan battles, and Specter weighs in with his opinions on each. I stress "opinions," not to be confused with facts, despite the title of the book. To say that one political party was more partisan than other in these fights would call for a measure that neither Specter nor I nor anyone has at their disposal. Specter leaves no doubt that he considers his opposite political party more partisan, less open-minded and a bit less worthy that his own party, particularly during the recent impeachment. Believe me, Arlen, there was enough partisanship to go around by everyone in that contest.

Equally doubtless is his distaste for our previous president. The background leading up to the trial received a workout, with Specter giving high points to the Kenneth Starr and low marks to anyone on the defense of the president. Specter maintains that the trial was flawed from the time that it was given to the Senate for deliberation; he states that Jim Rogan reportedly said, "I believe that every manager believes that we could have gotten the twelve Democratic votes (that they needed to impeach the president) if we had the opportunity to present our case."(p. 526) As any good lawyer will tell you, you just don't know how a jury's going to vote, Arlen. He seems mystified "that the American public was prepared to accept boorish behavior, perhaps simply because the economy was so strong and the government was otherwise running so smoothly . . . In President Clinton's case, admitted behavior clearly more repugnant than that denied by Judge Thomas still did not outrage the American public or switch many congressional minds. Had Thomas admitted Hill's charges, his nomination could not have survived."(p. 527) Probably not, Arlen: Clinton had 22 months to go until his presidency was over for good, while Arlen figured Thomas was good for perhaps forty years, and Thomas himself said he intended to serve until he was one hundred (p. 394).

The capper of all was when "Republicans were irate when the president, joined by throngs of Democrats, held a 'victory celebration' in the Rose Garden after the House voted out articles of impeachment" (p.505), after being promised a "gloat-free" zone. Was it any more raucous that the "victory celebration" held in the House of Representatives when that body of legislators voted to impeach the president?

By the way, Senator Specter, as long as you're digging for the truth in government, how active was your investigation of the Iran Contra affair?

In the end, a book that started out interesting grinds to a crawl, buried under the weight of its own promises. And we learn one more lesson from this - as with Bill Bennett's book, just because you have an attribute in your title, that doesn't mean that you have to know all that much about it.

However, the book delivers much more than just the details of Senator Specter's distinguished career. It is a well-written and quite readable and engrossing book that also gives the reader insight into the nature of Mr. Specter. Not only does he share the pivotal events in his life that led him towards a life of public service, but the reader also is allowed a glimpse into his character. He shares his laudable and selfless values, which genuinely seem to motivate his behavior (His "Passion for Truth"), but his incessant belittling of every other political figure mentioned in the book gives the reader insight into the arrogant self-centerness that makes him so controversial. It is striking that nearly everyone mentioned in the book is mentioned only to repeat a failure, miscalculation, or misstatement. Important and successful politicians all appear foolish and/or selfish in comparison to Mr. Specter, in Mr. Specter's eyes. Ed Rendell, the very successful two-term mayor of Philadelphia appears to be a buffoon in this book. All Mr. Specter recalls of his meeting with the then former President Dwight D. Eisenhower was that he made a casual statement about an objectionable Supreme Court decision which Mr. Specter interpreted to mean that the former two-term President was unaware of the separation of powers in our government. Is it really reasonable to think that a two-term President doesn't understand how Congress works? Oh yes, we are also told that President Eisenhower's jacket was poorly matched to his slacks.

I am not trying to be overly critical of Mr. Specter. I believe he has been an immensely successful politician that has served Philadelphia and later Pennsylvania well. His egotism is not entirely undeserved. His career is impressive and well worthy of a biography.

Included are detailed accounts of his service on the Warren Commission after the Kennedy assassination and his defense of his controversial "Single Bullet Theory," accounts of his time as a very successful and high-profile Assistant District Attorney for Philadelphia, the confirmation hearing for Judge Bork in his unsuccessful nomination for the Supreme Court, and the interrogation of Anita Hill in the confirmation hearing for the successful nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court, and the Clinton impeachment trial.

I personally found the more recent events to be the most interesting. Arlen Specter's role and perspective on the Clinton impeachment is fascinating and different from that which has been reported elsewhere. I gained insight into the Anita Hill and Robert Bork controversies as well.

Overall, I would highly recommend this book to anyone who might be interested. Whether you admire or dislike Arlen Specter, you can learn a lot about him and contemporary politics by reading this book. My one reservation in recommending this text is that a large portion of the book is about his days in Philadelphia and local politics. For those without an interest in Philadelphia and its politics, this portion of the book may be dull. Clearly, this section is of most interest to Philadelphians or people with an interest in Philadelphia. However, the rest should attract broad interest and it finishes with the best material, which will motivate you not to quit before you finish reading it.

".... Tainted by bias, and already committed to a flawed interpretation of events in print, I got no closer to the truth in the book.... I failed to weigh my findings against the fact that all of my sources were pro-Thomas partisans..... I had no access to Hill's supporters, and therefore no understanding of their motivations, no responses to any of my charges, and no knowledge of whatever incriminating evidence they might have gathered against Thomas that was not introduced in the hearing..... As for the traits ascribed to Hill that might have motivated her to lie -- ambitious, willful, and even vengeful -- they were all culled by me from the Thomas camp. Everyone I spoke to HATED that woman."

It is truly sad, and frightening, that not only was the book published, and believed, but that, as far as I'm aware, none of the conservatives who continued to rip Anita Hill to shreds based on the falsehoods contained in this book have come forth to apologize to her. Partisanship seems almost always to trump truth and plain human decency.

in reading his latest, he will explain what the score is for this one, what he called "character assassination."

i am somewhat disturbed by some of the other reviews, here, though....witness brock: "i could see that my reportorial method for *the real anita hill* was shoddy, not only in the sources i had trusted, but in the obvious fact that i had missed significant evidence that showed that hill's testimony was more truthful than thomas' flat denials after all. my version of the thomas-hill controversy was wrong, my belief in it as truth was a delusion. perhaps the errors of *the real anita hill* could be attributed to journalistic carelessness, ideological bias, and my misdirected quest for acceptance from a political movement. in the review of *strange justice*, however, to protect myself and my tribe from the truth and consequences of our own hypocrisy, smears, falsehoods, and cover-ups, i consciously and actively chose an unethical path. i continued to malign anita hill and her liberal supporters as liars. i trashed the professional reputations of two reporters for reporting something i knew was correct. i coerced an unsteady source, i knowlingly published a lie, and i falsified the historical record" (brock, d. *blidned by the right* ny: crown, 2002. p. 248).

as can be seen here, the author of *the real anita hill* is admitting that it is not true.