This biography is well written and researched. Unfortunately, it becomes painfully clear at times that the author, Robert Alan Goldberg, is writing from the Left. The book's strengths lie in his discussion of Goldwater's family history and upbringing. On the other hand, Goldberg's rants on Goldwater's racial complacency get old after a couple chapters, and do not relent. Goldberg essentially accuses Goldwater of turning a blind eye to racism, but then defends him by saying he himself was not racist.

Of course Goldwater was not racist. He did not "accomodate" racism, either...Goldwater just wasn't a "Civil Rights" activist like Goldberg, but then again, who is Goldberg to judge a man such as Barry Goldwater? When he sticks to the facts, this book is good. When he strays, it is awkward. Overall, though, its at least worth borrowing from the local library.

Barry Goldwater,as someone once pointed out, last name speaks of the 2 most important things in the American west. this biography,meticulous in its balance,shows Goldwater from his lonely days as a western conservative ina republican party dominated with eastern power and money{how wird does that sound now?],to his latter days a conscience of the conservaties,who found little to cheer about from the new right who claimed its parnetage to him.From his biting prescience on LBJ and Vietnam, to his condemnation of modern politcs,Goldwater was an original.truly .Would his vision and sheer balls be available on this convuluted and viscious landscape of politics today.Very,very well written,balanced,nuanced biography of a seminal figure of modern america.

In this wonderful biography, Goldberg provides a clear and enjoyable narrative of a rugged individualist, an independent thinker, and a man steeped in contradiction. Goldberg's book provides for a well-organized outline of Goldwater's life as a young man, businessman, Air Force pilot, and public servant. Unlike other Goldwater biographies, Goldberg's fair and impartial analysis of Goldwater's successes and foibles was a refreshing read.

First-hand interviews, existing documentation, and family information gives the reader a remarkable view into Goldwater's extraordinary life.

Highly recommended.

Several others have written covering the contents of The Common Law. I will just emphasize that most of the book focuses on how contemporary (in 1881) legal doctrines and issues had originated and developed in the cases and decisions of English courts from around 1200 AD onwards. This book is of interest primarily to people who are planning to study law and want some foundation, or to individuals with unusual historical interest in often-obscure English court decisions. I fell into the former category; the effort I put into tackling this book is worthwhile because I plan to use the knowledge later ... if I didn't, it would have been pretty much a waste of time.

There is one major caveat for the average reader. If you have not already studied the law, you will pretty much need to have a legal dictionary on hand. Assumpsit, bailment, disseisin -- if you are not familiar with terms like these, you are liable to have a very tough time with Holmes. Moreover, as a rule he tends to assume that the reader (originally, listener) is aware of the current state of the law already, and then proceeds to delve into its background. So if you do not understand the role of consideration in contracts already, you will essentially be forced to deduce it.

One gripe (and this is obviously not Holmes' fault) is that it is often very difficult, or at least very inconvenient, to follow up on his well-compiled footnotes, because many of the sources he frequently refers to (Glanvill, Fleta) are out of print and found only in academic or law libraries (and even then are frequently non-circulating materials), and most of the cases he cites are either from the Year Books (likewise arcane and out of print) or from unrecognizable English reports (Moody, Cox, B&S, H&C). Even a source like Blackstone, who was so fundamental to early American judges and lawmakers, is in few libraries and only 50% in print today; and Yale's online version does not appear to be volumized or paginated in accordance with whatever edition Holmes used.

This may sound like quite a catalog of complaints, but in the end I am very glad I invested the time and effort to conquer this book. Don't be turned off, just be aware that a relatively (for law books) [inexpensive] price does not make this a "mass-market" paperback.

Some may not agree with all or much of Holmes legal philosophy, but regardless, this book is well written and provides a first-hand perspective on one of America's foremost legal figures.

Oliver Wendell Holmes is regarded as one of the finest American jurists in history; this book deserves the accolades it has received.

The only review I ever read on Silent Coup was in the Los Angeles Times when the book was first published, and the review took up an entire page in the book review section. The best version of the book is the paperback, where the authors tell of what happened after the hardback version was published. As an example, Mike Wallace of 60 Minutes read the book and wanted to do a report, but the higher-ups at CBS told him he couldn't do it. Wallace tried several times afterward to do a 60 Minutes story, but was stopped each time. Because of the author's statements in the book, John Dean launched a 50 million dollar lawsuit, but his lawyer, after reviewing the book and the author's notes and interviews, dropped the lawsuit. Why? In the view of the two authors, John Dean was the total insider (and more) of the Watergate scandal, because he was the only one granted full access to the investigation, and this was under Nixon's direct order. The author's premise of taking all the books, all the magazine articles, all the newspaper stories and putting them in chronological order is the basis for the book and tells the reader that out of all the people involved in Watergate, there are two individules whose stories do not match the overall timeline established by the author's investigation. Nixon was not one of them. There are many conclusions to be drawn from the book, but the one that stands out to me the most is this one. Why did the Democratic-controlled congressional committee running the investigation seal certain evidence in the national archives FOREVER (and is it still there?)! You'll have to read the book (the paperback version is the better choice for the entire story) to find out. The liberal media has never given this book any credence, and possibly for good reason. They just might have got it all wrong! I believe so.

I have never liked John Dean and this book gave me 450 more pages of reasons to dislike him. Ok that might be a bit much, but the authors basically blame Dean and Haig for most of Nixon's problems. The book gives the reader a great overview of the Watergate scandal and what took place behind the scenes. If you have read a number of books on this topic then this one has a new and interesting look at what really happened. Not to give too much away but the authors make a claim that it was actually a few people that were on the Presidents staff that pushed, tricked and caused Nixon to make the mistakes he did which resulted in him resigning. We also get their guess at who good old Deep Throat was.

The authors do a very good job in detailing out all of the research they did to come to their conclusions. It looks like they read every book on the subject and talked to about 90% of the key players in the event. They give us all the instances where the statements that Dean made were just not completely correct and detail the many instances where Dean was completely wrong in many of his statements. They also have an interesting dup in the form of Woodward, which was an interesting tidbit. Overall it is hard to completely take all responsibility away from Nixon. The statements he made on tape and the full range of dirty tricks and abuse of power items that Nixon did just went too far to think that the issues around a Watergate cover up would be beyond him. The book is very interesting and is full of great insight into the administration. If you are interested at all in Watergate then you will really enjoy this book

"Silent Coup" is the result of one of the most important journalistic research efforts of the modern era. It details an alternative view of the Watergate Affair, and blows a mile-wide hole in the commonly-accepted account of Woodward & Bernstein.

As distasteful as it may be to some readers, the work generally supports the long-held claims of the G. Gordon Liddy camp, i.e. that Woodward & Bernstein's accounts in "The Washington Post" and their following books were merely an extension of John Dean's version of Watergate, wherein Dean is innocent and everyone else is guilty. However, while the book vindicates Liddy's testimony as to fact, it does not paint much of a flattering picture of the convicted felon otherwise.

Colodny & Gettlin expose Dean's supposed role of "fall guy" for what it is: self-serving lies, and lies that were (or should have been) known to the Watergate prosecutors who used his perjured testimony, given in exchange for leniency, to bring down the Nixon Administration. A carefully researched and meticulously documented thesis is posited by the authors, namely that Dean essentially sent the White House up the river in order to save his own neck and conceal his own critical involvement in literally every aspect of the Watergate crimes and cover-ups.

Specifically, an overwhelming case is made that Dean, in order to squash his own involvement in a seperate legal matter pertaining to the surreptitious use of DNC headquarters in Washington as a front for a high-class call-girl service, and in which his own future wife Mo was complicit, instigated the burglaries at the DNC in hopes of removing evidence belying his association therein. The DNC burglaries were conveniently tucked into the overall dirty tricks program against the advice of most of the operative conspirators, who, as Liddy has stated, saw no value in hitting the DNC. The value of the break-in, the authors show, was to Dean and Dean alone.

The other primary bombshell dropped in "Silent Coup" is the very under-reported fact that journalist Bob Woodward was, astonishingly, a former Naval Officer involved in extremely sensitive communications intelligence, and that Woodward almost certainly briefed Alexander Haig and others in the Nixon White House in an official capacity prior to his departure from the Navy and rapid rise to the unlikely position of star reporter for the Post, and, conveniently, the lead newsbreaker in the Watergate matter! This direct link between Woodward and the Nixon White House should have disqualified Woodward from reporting on the matter. It did not disqualify him, because those who should have known about the link apparently either didn't know, or didn't care.

This fine history of the Watergate era covers many other pertinent related topics, including the establishment of a top-secret communications "back channel", which Nixon instituted in order to sidestep the State Department and Pentagon in sensitive dealings with the former USSR, Red China, and in the prosecution and settlement of the Vietnam War. The evidence shows that the back channel was illegally compromised by Haig and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The implications with respect to the larger Watergate scandal are addressed in detail by the authors.

The work also touches many historical issues exposed by the Watergate investigations, not the least of which is the implication that Nixon may have known the truth behind the Kennedy Assassination, and that some those connected to Watergate may have been directly involved, namely E. Howard Hunt, Frank Sturgis, and perhaps some of the Cuban "Plumbers". Again, this history encompasses more than just Watergate by virtue of the enormous amount of studious research that was necessary to document the central arguments contained within.

The importance of this book is further magnified by the fact that a large number of the players in the Watergate affair are deceased; fortunately for history, the authors had the opportunity to interview most of the now-dead key players prior to their passing.

This book is must reading for anyone interested in Watergate. The book's radical rethinking of the common wisdom of Watergate is both refreshing and disturbing, not only in its treatment of the facts of the case, but as an expose' of the secret agenda of Bob Woodward.

This is a POWERFUL book. A good, quick read from some of our premier modern-day American historians. This collection of essays gives us an inside look at most of the presidencies of the second half of the 20th century. A must read for any history buff.

• Edmund Morris - Last fall, Morris published the controversial biography Dutch: A Memoir of Ronald Reagan. His book The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt earned him a Pulitzer Prize.

• Ben Bradlee - Author of That Special Grace, a tribute to John F. Kennedy, Bradlee is a vice president at the Washington Post. He previously was the executive editor at the Post who oversaw reporting of the Watergate scandal.

• David Maraniss - A reporter at the Washington Post since 1977, Maraniss earned a Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting for his coverage of Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign. He subsequently wrote the Clinton biography, First in his Class. His latest book is When Pride Still Mattered: A Life of Vince Lombardi.

The "Power and the Presidency" series was created on behalf of the Montgomery Endowment by alumnus Robert A. Wilson of Dallas, a communications consultant who put together a similar series, "Character Above All" (dealing with the impact of character on presidential leadership) in 1994 at the University of Texas at Austin.

These well written essays provide vivid glimpses of varying Presidential personalities, with thoughtful discussion of individual strengths and weaknesses. To me, especially in an election year where character is a major issue, it was an enthralling read, with highlights of qualities such as "Reagan's voice, which was a large part of Reagan's power..." or the speaking style of TR, with plosive P sounds, which "would pop with Gatling-gun force. The effect of his oratory was to bury every word in the psyche of his listeners." or the political genius exhibited by FDR who talked "at a level at which very few people could follow him and understand what he was really saying" that FDR also recognized in a young congressmen, LBJ, as "he saw Johnson understood _everything_ he was talking about." I enjoyed reading these examples of behavior and the illuminating contrasts such as: "It is hard to imagine two more different men than Dwight Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy..." or "despite the major differences in their temperaments--indeed, I would argue, because of these differences--Eleanor and Franklin forged their historic partnership..." I would recommend to readers the book "Presidential Temperament" by Choiniere and Keirsey, another well researched volume which gives an explanation of "how each President's temperament inevitably expressed itself in his behavior, both in office and in his personal life."

Mr. Bennett shows a sad, vindictive streak in this book, which I had not expected from him. He acts as if the whole point of politics is to win debates, using whatever vitriol necessary to score points, with no regard for civility or morality. It is nice to see that for all his liberal-bashing in this text, he found better ground in the future, for in his book on virtues he explicitly makes the point that good, moral people can be liberals or conservatives. If you can ignore the rampant hatred, he makes some decent points. The section on drug policy is a great read, much nicer than his assault on teacher unions when he supposedly is writing about education. I wouldn't really recommend this book to anyone, though it has some positive features. There are more open-minded and insightful political writers out there, like Michael Lind, Richard John Neuhaus or Jim Wallis. Let's not confine ourselves to the angry complaints of a bureacrat like Bennett.

Like most politicians, Bill Bennett seems to like himself a bit too much. And as you might expect, the book reads a little like a closing argument in an anti-trust case. But if you are able to ignore the oppressively partisan slant, it does make for a decent read.

As I spend spare time exposing televangelists, my favorite quote was: "the national conversation on values, public morality, and the proper role of religion in public life was hurt 'when those who protest the loudest fail to live up to morality in their own lives'." [p. 219] And, by the grace of God, he never mentioned Newt Gingrich.... :)

This is a great book. All parents and teachers should read it. Our country needs more people like Bennett. The book accurately discusses current issues in American schools and drug problems in America. I was educated at Princeton and Yale and am now a practicing physician. It is true what Bennett and Bork have said about the harmful effect of unrealistic liberals at prestigious institutions have corrupted American values and have contributed to the decline of American academic and moral standards. This book will help you to sort through the problems faced by someone trying to make sure that their children get a good education in the United States and to avoid the pitfalls of drug abuse and irresponsible behavior.

I have always been a fan of the intellectual debates in the New York Review of Books letters to the editor pages. This book consists of two articles by Crews and the subsequent debates surrounding them. I would have liked to see better defenses of Freud, but none of the eminent defenders of psychoanalysis is able to mount a serious challenge to Crews's devastating attacks.

This devastating book has two parts: (1) The Unknown Freud, where the reader gets a picture of Freud as a dictator, a megalomaniac and egotripper. A pope who alone knew the truth and who founded a secret commission to protect his 'church' against the heathen. He was a bad psychoanalyst (e.g. the Wolf Man case) and a venal man (e.g. the catastrophic Horace Fink case, where he tried to get his own hands on some money of the heiress).
I agree with the author that psychoanalysis is a pseudoscience - statements cannot be tested and the research results cannot be verified uniformly. Although it is not totally without meaning (Karl Popper), it is not a science.
(2) the revenge of the repressed
A frontal attack on the caste of the psychoanalysts, depicted as 'religious zealots, self-help evangelists, sociopolitical ideologues, and outright charlatans who trade in the ever seductive currency of guilt and blame, while keeping the doctor's fees mounting.'
The author is particularly severe with their latest 'school' : the 'recovered memory movement', based on the rape of children by their parents (really!). This lead to false accusations and condemnations of innocent people. No wonder the author predicts an accelerating collapse of psychoanalysis as a respected institution.
A much needed and courageous book to halt a profession riding at full speed on a misty highway. And a much needed angle on Freud as a person, written in a style to slaughter the not so innocent father of psychoanalysis.
After reading this book, I agree with Peter Madawar, who called doctrinaire psychoanalytic theory "the most stupendous intellectual confidence trick of the twentieth century".

Frederick Crews really knows how to tap that deep reservoir of hostility found in modern Freudian psychoanalysts. In 1993 and 1994 FC wrote two essays in the New York Review of Books debunking Freud in the first, and tearing to shreds the recovered memory movement in the second.

These two essays and the letters in response to them have been put into the book The Memory Wars. As someone trained in experimental psychology you can guess my own personal bias in this matter. Crews discusses Freud's botched cases; his frequent vacillation in theory formation; some of his sillier theories; and his serious interjection of personal bias into the formation of his beliefs. The main problem with the whole Freudian system is the total lack of scientific evidence supporting it. Freudian psychoanalysis is founded on anecdote and supported by anecdotes. To be fair, much current non-Freudian therapy is also based on anecdote. Indignant Freud followers write back, and their letters are indeed interesting (and often pompous).

The second half of the book takes on the recovered memory movement. It would be great to poke fun at this movement if it weren't for the fact that it has caused so much damage to all parties involved. Symptoms checklists are published with the statement if you suffer from these symptoms you may be a victim of sexual abuse. Read the list and you will find that the majority of Americans will find that they have been abused. It's all a patient seduction game with the intent to make big money. Hospitals have even set up units to treat such patients (Having worked in the psychiatric hospital industry I am well aware of the "product lines" that such facilities set up in order to fill beds). Crews does an excellent job of dissecting the memory movement, and once again we get to read the indignant responses.

Those who believe that psychological therapy should be based on sound scientific evidence will love this book. Those who have accepted Freudianism with a religious like faith will, of course, hate it. To me this whole subject is analogous to the evolution vs. creationist debate. It's science versus pseudoscience.

This book is not only looks into the hoaxes by the psyche of the hoaxsters. Why would they do it? What were their motivations? What do they have in common. Equally interesting is the individual who actually accomplished his exploration but was accused of pulling a hoax. He had all the evidence to prove his claim but would not use it! Why? His psyche had common ground with hoaxsters. To find out more you will have to read the book. It is an interesting read.

The problem with Dave Roberts is that he has established himself in a particular genre - i.e. intense, concise and slightly acerbic adventure writing. As a result, you tend to expect that approach from all his writing, which isn't really fair, but there you have it.

In Great Exploration Hoaxes, Roberts steps outside his usual format to do some research. I'm not really surprised. Comments in the introductions to his previous collections make it clear he is intrigued by the workings of the human psyche as well as the thrill of high risk adventure. However, this book is definitely a departure, and reads like a series of well-written research papers - which I guess, in essence, they are.

There is nothing wrong with Great Exploration Hoaxes. It is a good read and I recommend it, especially if you are interested in what history says versus what actually happened. The problem lies with Robets tackling historical data. It is hard to bring the dead back to life, especially when their writing is not available for comment. For example, Roberts does a fine job of getting the reader interested in John Cabot, but must rely on the work of Cabot's contemporaries and other researchers to substantiate his theories.

Roberts is at his best when he is relating the story and not supporting his hypothesis with data. But since he is trying to debunk some old myths, he naturally has to support his statements. It is an uneasy alliance that works, but is not the usual Roberts fare.

I recommend the book, but will be looking forward to Roberts' next tale of his own wanderings and resulting insights.

The author presents an interesting collection of well documented essays (and a few historical photographs) that intrigue and educate the reader about some of the greatest adventurer and discovery hoaxes over the centuries. His most interesting inquiry is saved for the reader to ponder. "How many claimed discoveries and adventures that we unquestionably and faithfully accept as true were also mere fantasy?" Did Hannibal really cross the Alps? Was it Tenzig Norgay first to summit on Everest or was it Hillary? If Neil Armstrong was the first man on the moon, who took the famous picture of him descending from the space capsule planting a foot firmly onto Moon soil? This book can get you thinking.

Following in the tradition of Yale's Cardiovascular Health Guide, the Harvard Medical School Family Health Guide, and the Johns Hopkins Medical Guide to Health After 50, the venerable Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons offers us this latest addition to the health-obsessed consumer craze for complete home medical references. As expected, this book offers only more of the same: a good name, a lot of pages, and a redundant course in layman's medicine. Given the sheer size and weight of the volume (lifting it is an exercise itself), you would expect the entries to have more detail and, well, more specialized terminology. The diagrams which accompany many of the chapters elicit more boredom than information (save for the psychiatric section's tables, which are rather good), and the overall organization of the book sacrifices content for accessibility. I've seen many home medical guides at the bookstore lately, and this one just doesn't stand out in particular. My honest recommendation is that you look past the University's illustrious name and opt instead for the MERCK MANUAL HOME EDITION (paperback version), which for its small size and affordable price is the best home medical guide for the entire family.

Very informative. I suffer from PVC's and try to get my hands on as much info as possible. I found this book to be very helpful in my understanding more on this condition.

This classic western tail of men saving women, while being a great love story is also a wonderful adventure story. A classic cowboy\borderman fights indian to save the helpless beuty, but instead of man saving woman, it is reversed, when Helen saves Jonathan from his own unhappy life. I have loved this book since the first day my mother placed it in my hands to read, and although the original has a few lapses in storyline, they kill someone twice, the basic story structure is enjoyable. Having read this book close to a dozen times, I can recommend that every person who has never given westerns a try read this one.

This play can be read as anti-semitic. In fact, it's pretty hard to defend it from such charges. Shylock is a pretty rotten character and the fact that he is jewish is difficult to overlook (particularly since the other characters mention it on pretty much EVERY page). However, I think it is important to mention that the "heroes" of this play do not necessarily have to be interpreted as heroes. They are by no means perfect and there are many subtle (and some not-so-subtle) instances within the text in which their biases against ANYONE unlike them is illustrated. If one reads the play this way, then Shylock becomes more of a tragic figure rather than an absolutely heartless villain. I don't know. My feelings about this are mixed. There are a few funny parts of this play and the language is, as always, beautiful. The theme of putting a price on human beings is one which has been explored numerous times since. Overall, it is enjoyable, but perhaps not so much so as some of the other comedies. Do not read this play without having read a few others by Shakespeare first. It is an excellent play, but not his best and not his most enjoyable either.

This is a wonderful play - and unless you have seen it or read it you don't know it at all. That's because everything the popular culture tells us about this play is false (for example; how many of you think this play is about a merchant named Shylock? ;-)

The Merchant of Venice is a lively and happy morality tale. Good triumphs over bad - charity over greed - love over hate.
There is fine comedy. Portia is one of Shakespeare's greatest women (and he ennobled women more than any playwright in history). There are moments of empathy and pain with all the major characters. There is great humanity and earthiness in this play. These things are what elevate Shakespeare over any other playwright in English history.

Plays should be seen - not read. I recommend you see this play (if you can find a theater with the courage and skill to do it). But if it is not playing in your area this season - buy the book and read it.

After reading most of the other reviews here, I am fully aware that most of the reviewers didn't read carefully enough (or watch carefully enough if they saw the play.) Now, I'm not saying its not open for different interpretations, but there is one thing I would really like to get straight.

I read MoV for a Bar Mitzvah project on Anti-Semitism. Naturally, my sympathies went to Shylock. However, even if i were Christian, i still would've favored Shylock. What many people believe is that Shylock is a cold hearted ruthless person and only wanted to get back at Antonio because Antonio was a Christian.

Not true. Shylock specifically says something along the lines off, "Why should I lend money to you? You spit on me, and call me a Jewish dog!" I'm not saying that Shylock was a good guy, but I am saying that he is not the villain.

In fact, the "Merchant of Venice," in this story is actually Shylock, not Antonio, contrary to popular belief. My thoughts on the story was that Shylock requested a pound of Antonio's flesh because he did not trust Antonio. Who would trust someone that spat on him? The fact is, Antonio doesn't pay him back in the end.

Now, there's always something else we have to put into consideration. Would the judge had given the "spill one ounce of Christian blood" verdict at the end if Shylock were not a Jew?

This is the mark of a great play. A play that really gets you thinking. But I encourage you, I beg of you, that when you read it or see it, please do not hold Shylock up to being a cold hearted villain. Hold Antonio up to that image. (joking, of course, Antonio's not a bad guy, he's just not a good guy.)