My goodness! What an expose' of an amazing woman. I only know about what Joy Adamson did as far as Elsa was concerned. I was a child at the time of the book and the movie called Born Free. It captivated me along with many many others in the world. Many people, it seems, do incredible things and must go up against amazing odds to accomplish things for the betterment of a species or whatever. I, of course, am referring to the accounts of Dian Fossey and a few others I can't remember right now.

I don't know if this account is true or partly true or not - I only know that it shows that even the amazing are not so perfect as the movies will lead you to believe. I believe that there is truth in all things and ours is not to judge so harshly because we are not in their heads and hearts at all times.

Joy Adamson because of her "abrupt" manner was able to do things that a "nice" person could not, perhaps? It is a shame, however, that it can be so difficult for people to separate who to be difficult to and who not to in their lives.

This book was a good read, but like I said - probably shouldn't be taken as gospel.

Sunstein's look at America's political process does have some innovative ideas for how to fix some of the problems that he perceives. In this book, he furthers his idea of judicial minimalism, the idea of the least active court. This book is probably only for polished legal scholars.

It is rare when an author is able to sustain an argument that successfully challenges the work to which I have devoted my recent energies.

Yet that is exactly what Cass Sunstein, a University of Chicago Law Professor, does in Republic.com. With an improving ability to filter everything we wish to see, read and hear Sunstein asks if this is healthy for a democratic based society. The successful practice of Democracy, he argues, requires an informed citizenry.

In the pre-cyberworld, newspapers, magazines and other media outlets performed this function by exposing readers to a varied diet of opinions and ideas. They created an environment where citizens should share their common values and experiences. As the traditional media's role as purveyor diminishes and the reader's power to filter unwanted messages improves, society is in danger of fragmenting, shared communities in danger of dissolving. Shrill and extreme versions of our own thoughts and opinions will be sucked into this vacuum, Sunstein argues.

While I buy author's argument, I reject his conclusions. He argues for increased regulation of The Internet. I respond that more regulation is self-defeating, if the end is a democratic free-society. Filtering is the inevitable response to the growth of information. Readers do not have enough time to assimilate all they are asked. Responsible editors, human in the past, mechanical in the future, will be asked to do what they have always done: prepare and present a balanced view of the reader's world.

The Internet will prove to be effective means for preserving and promoting our cherished Democratic Principles. Citizens, I believe, once aware of filtering potential hazards will take deliberate steps to assure that it does not undermine the institutions and ideas they cherish.

Sunstein excels at calming people down. His writing style tries to chill some of the excitement over the Net, and try to return us to thinking about basic questions of democracy. His argument has several facets and certainly couldn't be adequately represented here (or else there'd be no need to buy the book), but one major point goes like this: so-called ``general interest intermediaries" in the mass media -- for instance, newspapers and television -- serve a vital role in a democracy: they get us to see points of view that we might not have chosen to see if we could totally control the content coming at us. Sunstein sees a great danger that the Internet will (in MIT Media Lab chief Nicholas Negroponte's words) allow us to create a ``daily me": content that we choose to the exclusion of all others. He presents some good arguments about how this content restriction is exactly what democracy *doesn't* need, then proposes some policies -- private if possible, public if necessary -- that will help keep discussion wide-ranging and open on the Net.

I claim that he doesn't go far enough, though. It's possible for people who just read newspapers and magazines -- to say nothing of the Internet -- to see only the narrow opinions that they choose to see (e.g., imagine someone reading only _The National Review_). If Sunstein stuck to the point that democracy require general-interest intermediaries -- on the Net or not -- he'd have a much stronger case. The point is: how do we defend democracy? The Net is incidental to this point. I emailed Sunstein to ask about this, and he replied that he agrees; he says that ``I'll try to fix this, to the extent that I can, in the paperback."

I'm a huge Net advocate and a believer in the possibilities of the Net promoting democracy. But Sunstein has written an important book, even if it is one many people online will consider heretic. He's challenging the tech world -- a sometimes narcissistic and elitist culture which often talks a lot about the masses and democracy, even though most people aren't online or tech savvy -- to consider that the explosion in collaborative filtering and other software (like that used here on this site) is causing us to only deal with ideas we know we're going to like. He reminds us that we are also citizens as well as free and empowered netizens, and that citizens need a public place to get together and be exposed to unanticipated and other ideas they might not agree with. The explosion on moderation and filtering is making it easier than every for people to screen out products, books, opinions they think they don't want to hear. In a civic sense, that leads to a sort of cultural Serbia. Sunstein is quite careful in this book not to be knee-jerk. He isn't anti-technology. He is challenging people to consider the implications of this powerful software. In the tech world, stuff is often judged by how cool it is, rather than by its consequences. My one strong disagreement is Sunstein's call for mandatory links to sites that offer opposing points of view. People shouldn't be forced to consider idea they don't like, they should be encouraged to get to places where they are exposed to them. But I think this is a very significant work, and I highly recommend it to people who love the Net and are interested in its impact on democracy.

I used this book for my Con Law I and II course, so I feel that I know this book pretty well. For Con Law I, the book was absolutely TERRIBLE. The cases are edited down so much that they are borderline incoherent, such as in Marbury v. Madison and McCullough v. Maryland. There is a great deal of "commentary" in between cases from the authors regarding the information they edited out within the cases, but the structure of learning what was in the case AFTER reading through the case is confusing and time consuming, forcing you to retrace a lot of your steps needlessly. The bottom line on this book for Con Law I is to buy the Legalines supplement for this book, and read it religiously after every case. Chemerinsky's supplement is a great deal of assistance as well, because Con Law I is much more confusing for students using this book (from inquiring through other classmates using different texts). For Con Law II, the subject matter gets 100 times more interesting, but the content of the book remains the same. As a reviewer previously stated, the editing of Brown v. Board of Education is absolutely unacceptable. Such a landmark case fit into four pages? Ridiculous! However, there will be a lot of stimulating class discussion to supplement the extremely edited-down cases presented in Con Law II. My best advice? Buy supplements and keep yourself on top of what you're reading before you get too lost, and make notecards to keep the tests for different circumstances (like justiciability, commerce clause, dormant commerce clause, etc.) straight.

A good starting Con Law book, however, as the title of this review states, it was too well edited. Crucial facts surrounding key cases like Marbery were not included. The omission makes it easier to read through the voluminous pages, but it's not enough. The reader will *have* to supplement the text with strong in-class notes or a commercial text/outline. There are some key cases simply 'missing' and the coverage of prominent cases like "Brown" is simply insufficient. Comparison and analysis of how one case indirectly may overrule another is also lacking. Overall, it is not a BAD book, the authors probably need to cut some dead weight so they have room to include the missing pieces. Also -- a word to the wise -- since the current Supreme Court is the most active, it is essential for the student to keep up with the latest decsions.

While it wasn't the most exciting book I've read, "The Cost of Rights" was a refreshing twist on the taxes issue. It challenged opponents of the current tax system or any tax system to think critically on the subject. I felt that Holmes' and Sunstein's approach was more effective than a listing of statistics. Rather than explaining economic reasons for taxes, they brought it to a level that related more to readers. Everyone has a reason to be interested in the preservation of his or her own rights. Without taxes for government support, we could not be guaranteed equal representation before the law. Taxes pay for law enforcement and other government services that are vital to our liberty. Without taxes, no one would every truly own property. Taxes serve as the standard for American's to exist and be governed by. They do not discern our morals, but instead preserve our rights. In "The Cost of Rights", the case for taxes was presented in such a way that I couldn't see liberty without some sort of tax system.

It is the fashion to disparage government and all its works these days. Sunstein and Holmes have given this timely reminder that Constitutional and property rights only have meaning if they can be enforced BY the government (that is, by courts, executive agencies, police departments, disaster relief, and the like). The book is flawed to the extent that seems to call for affirmative rights to public services (social workers, police) to be enforced by judges. Such a state of affairs would totally undercut the majority-rule principle of democratic society. However, the book is a welcome antidote to the trendy, bumper-sticker diatribes against the evils of government. We need a serious dialogue on the proper (and limited) functions of government in the new global economy, not more slogans. If you like this book, also look at Garry Wills's "Necessary Evil" (which does a better job with historical background) and Brinkley's "New Federalist Papers."

This book covers an important issue that is rarely bought up: liberty, rights etc. depend of an enforcement mechanism.

And this enforcement mechanism is government. Weak governments (such as those of the current Russia) cannot guarantee property rights or any other rights for their citizens. Anyone who feels they can establish their rights without government should visit Somalia and see how easy or difficult it is in the absence of government.

How would you establish right to a plot of land, for instance, without a title, some means of enforcing property laws ?

The Founding Fathers most certainly recognized the value of government -- thats why they wrote the Constitution, because the Articles of Confederation proved inadequate. They also provided the government with the means to fund itself -- through tarrifs, which are just another form of taxes. This is something the authors do indeed support, and at least two of the 1-star reviews lead me to conclude the authors never got beyond the title.

Finally, the Constition does indeed provide powers to the States. But is unclear why this should necessarily please someone who claims that governments take away all rights, since the states are also run by governments. In fact, historically, the states have had practically all the powers (public schools, eminent domain, property taxes) etc. etc. that libertarian types find distasteful.

This book is NOT a call for higher taxes, and it recognizes the tax-and-spend problems as well.

it is very serious boo

Lewis Cass is one of the strangest biographies I have ever read. Only rarely in the book is Lewis Cass the center of the narrative. After reading the book, I still do not know if Lewis Cass was ever married or had a family. I know very little about his personality or disposition. I know only about his public career and some of the public issues with which he was involved during his long public career. Cass is presented almost exclusively through his public actions, statements and writings.

His public career is quite a story in itself. This native of New Hampshire move west into Ohio in time for Cass to become a general in the War of 1812, fighting on the front between Detroit and what is now Ontario. He then stayed in Michigan where he served 18 years as territorial governor.

Having grown into a National Statesman, Cass later served Andrew Jackson as Secretary of War, followed by a term as Ambassador to France. Upon to his return to the United States, Cass was a serious candidate for the Democratic nomination for President in 1844 before a deadlocked convention turned to James K. Polk. Four years later, Cass won the nomination, only to lose the election to Gen. Zachary Taylor, a loss which, according to the book, was probably attributable to the candidacy of former President Martin Van Buren on the Free Soil Ticket.

Presidential politics being behind him, Cass served two terms as Michigan's Senator until the rise of the Republican party swept him out of the Senate and into the cabinet President Buchanan's as Secretary of State. It was from this position that Cass watched the dissolution of the country as well as the cabinet in the waning days of that administration.

Returning to Michigan, Cass supported the cause of national unity until his death in 1866.

The most interesting thing about this book is the literary style in which it is written. Throughout the book, Cass is portrayed as a righteous character opposed by a series of villainous figures toward whom attention is directed in the particular sections of the book. Prominent among these are General Hull of the War of 1812, Andrew Jackson and James Buchanan. The general style is to relate a particular aspect of history and then allude to the public role which Cass played in it.

During the section on the War of 1812, Cass' position is contrasted favorably with that of Gen. Hull who is treated most roughly in the narrative. In the section on Cass' governorship of the Wisconsin territory, most of the attention is directed to the French inhabitants who occupied the territory at the start of Cass' tenure. A contrast is drawn the French, who are presented as happy but unambitious, and Cass who introduced American initiative and drive into the territory and, thereby, advanced it into the Western powerhouse which it became.

The section on his service in Jackson's cabinet portrays Jackson in a very unfavorable light, while praising Cass. Cass' service as Minster to France is presented most favorably.

Cass' Senate years were dominated primarily by the issues of slavery which were gradually tearing the nation apart. Cass is portrayed as the creator of the doctrine of Popular Sovereignty in which the voters of each territory would be permitted to decide the issue of slavery for itself. Swipes are taken at Stephen A. Douglas who is popularly remembered as the advocate of that position. The conclusion of the Senate service is seen against the backdrop of the swing of the Northwest from its tradition allegiance to the Democracy (Democratic Party) to the new Republican party which would soon sweep the area and the country into Civil War.

The service in Buchanan's cabinet is used to present the deterioration of the country as well as Buchanan's feeble efforts to deal with the problem.

The style of writing is shockingly judgmental in its treatment of the public figures portrayed in the book. While modern readers may expect to see facts presented in a way as to portray figures in favorable or unfavorable lights, we rarely expect to see the conclusions presented by strong and extreme adjectives.

What real value there is in this book is its portrayal of the general history of the times and places in which Cass played his roles in the nation's drama as portrayed in the 1890s. It is in seeing our history from through the 1890s eyes of the author that we can take the greatest lessons from this book.

This book proved to be a great disappointment. While the topic, the geography of North America, is clearly too large for a book of this size, I can understand the need for brevity when writing for a young audience. The real weakness of the book lies in the text. There are factual errors, such as a map that says the primary language of Belize is French (the correct answer is English). There are grammatical errors that any word processor should have flagged. Frequently opinions are stated as facts, which can be misleading for children. All in all, this book is a poor choice as an introduction to geography.