While I agree with the notion that there are likely plenty of congressmen who are "bought off" by special interests with cash-rich lobbies, this book has an obvious statist bias that made it difficult to get through the whole thing.

The book never addresses the fundamental causal issue in judging whether someone has been unduly influenced by a contribution. To wit: How can we tell if 1) a legislator has voted for X because he got money from a group supporting X or 2) if a group supporting X wisely give money to a legislator likely to support X? This may seem trivial, but it is the heart of the matter since the difference determines if a vote was due to conscience or corruption. Compounding the problem, Lewis seems to assume that for every problem, there is a solution in law or regulation that would fix it and anyone opposing that solution is corrupt. What if there are just going to be some dangerous things in life and it isn't the government's job to provide us with an idiot-proof, Nerf world in which to live?

In addition, the book is very politically one-sided in its choice of examples. That is, there are more than a dozen chapters on big corporations with lobbies concerned with environmental laws, FDA regulations, et cetera (and the cliche diatribes against the NRA). But there is no mention of left-leaning groups like AARP, the trial lawyers, trade unions, teachers, et cetera who wield plenty of influence on the Hill. I would never claim that plenty of big companies don't do their best to buy votes, but the focus on traditionally Democratic groups buying legislation is conspicuous in its absence.

On behalf of the book, I will say that *within* any particular arena, the author goes out of his way to point to suspicious activities by both Republicans and Democrats. And, rather than explicitly suggesting new campaign laws, he promotes voter vigilance. Of course the examples cited are very enticing (if inconclusive) and if they prompt people to pay more attention to Congressional goings-on then Lewis will have done everyone a service.

- Mike Brokowski

This is close to being a must read for Americans. While I do think there is some bias in here (It is clear that Lewis is left-wing), his research provided the foundation for some excellent points. Yes, the fact that politicians receive special interest money does not prove that their votes have been bought, but there is definitely a tremendous gray area that results in clear conflicts of interest. Lewis provides many examples within both political parties.

My topic line says it all. We've all heard and followed the stories about how Congress is beholden to special interests, and how they have in turn done favors for various industries in return. However, this book puts it all together in a way that has really upset me. And yet it is not a sensational cheap book. Per the Acknowledgements section of page 351 ff, it was a huge team project of the Center For Public Integrity involving 10 writers and 25 researchers. And the Center has written and published a number of books during the past 8 years, so they didn't start fresh in researching the topics covered.

This is yet another tome on how and why it's best for us all to live together on the fragile planet. His ancient thesis articulated, Mulgan (part of the Blair Braintrust in Britain) takes the scatter-gun approach to, well, just about everything--and nothing in detail. Mulgan's book comes off as more a Statist Apologia than an interpretation and explanation of "connexity." He grapples little with the forces of "connexity," such as the Internet, and what they'll make of decidedly Modern inventions (such as the welfare state). Instead, Mulgan argues that some governments really can have positive effects on their people. No argument there, but how does "connexity" impact the role of government? That seems to be what Mulgan is trying to answer amid the pretensions to technological and sociological expertise. "Connexity" comes off as well in some ways as Mulgan's greatest fear: in one place he declares that too much freedom is a very bad thing. Again, no argument, but it begs numerous questions--apparently too many for Mulgan to answer. If you really want to know what's going on in the connected world, read Wacker and Taylor's "500-Year Delta." It takes nothing as given.

First, this book is absolutely spectacular. Well thought out and thoroughly presented.

If you expect to interact with people and exchange information, you need to read this book. Being part of society is what makes societies and governments function. Without some level of connection/involvement between people, nothing would be accomplished.

Read and re-read... it will change the way you think, and even possibly make you a more enriched person...

Connexity presents invaluable and different tastes from the windows of Mulgan. While reading this book, you feel yourself in the jungle of real life.

OK...I'll admit it; I got fooled! I didn't read the review carefully enough nor did I do the necessary inspection of the book itself. I was expecting a well written, adult oriented, lengthy, history of the early years of the republic; say from 1730 to about 1810.
What I got was a picture book suited to 7th/8th graders at best. The bibliography is a joke. If you have children of these ages in your home, this is a passable book. I don't. For me, the book was a waste of money

The title "Give Me Liberty!" is closer to the mark that the subtitle, which says this juvenile history by Russell Freedman is "The Story of the Declaration of Independence." More properly, it is a history of the American Revolution from the Boston Tea Party on December 16, 1773 to the declaring of Independence on July 4, 1776. In fact, only the last two chapters are devoted to the actual Declaration of Independence, the first being a history of the writing and adoption of the Declaration and the second being an analysis of the document's significance (followed by the complete text of the document). It is in this last chapter that Freedman looks at the Declaration from a contemporary perspective on issues like the rights of women and how the concept of equality applied to a nation that allowed slavery, as well as the importance of the Declaration in the powerful rhetoric of Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King, Jr.

However, the title of his book remains problematic for me. I picked it up because I was checking out juvenile histories dealing with the Declaration of Independence and while Freedman is certainly not alone in putting the Declaration in the full context of the American Revolution and colonial relations with the British crown, I am still looking for a first rate book about what happened in Philadelphia during the summer of 1776. Yes, I am basically looking for something that will tell young students the story behind the musical "1776," which has enjoyed a Broadway revival and been touring the nation the last couple of years. "Give Me Liberty" has excellent historic paintings and etchings, and Freedman usually works in some analysis along with the historical facts. It is for that reason in general, and his last chapter in particular, that I am willing to overlook the problems with the title. Any teacher covering the Declaration of Independence in class would be well served to take notes on the points covered in that last chapter.

This book is about the Declaration of Independence. It all began with the Boston Tea Party when men and boys dumped tea out. They did not want to pay King George taxes. So, the British came to Boston to assault the Americans. Read this book to find out many more interesting facts about this time in history. My favorite part was when Patrick Henry said, "Give me liberty or give me death." My favorite character is George Washington because he was our first president, and he won a lot of battles against the British. I think that others would like this book because it is about the Declaration of Independence.

Simon and Bowie do provide a basic sketch of philosophy which is particularly relevant to LD debate. what they do not do is provide the most up to date, ardent, or quotable defense of any of them. I would reccommend Grady's Dictionary of Philosophical Quotations or Singer's overview of ethics much more highly for any debater who aspires to more than mere mediocrity. In the world of debate, this is the huge survey lecture course taught by a barely qualified TA. Those with intellect and motivation can do much better and needn't waste their money and confine their minds. Besides, LD is outgrowing this outmoded paradigm anyway--just read the LD-L if you wont take the word of a national circuit debater.

High school debate students who are just starting out would be well served to pick up a copy of this book. It is a terrific background source for a wide variety of philosophical concepts that are often used in competitive Lincoln-Douglas debate. It is important not to use this book as a primary source of evidence, but merely as a text to gain understanding of the philosophy in the vernacular. In conjunction with Scott Robinson's "L-D Road Guide", this book is a terrific tool for novice debaters.

If you want to get deep in your knowledge of philosophy, get this book. I bought it for my high school students.

I think this book is very translucent. There really seems to be no depth or originality. It seems as though the author needs to focus more on herself to discover herself. Let the real personality shine through these works. It seems as though the words at times may "sound" pretty but really seem to be quite superficial.

I truly enjoyed Marie Liberty's work, "Scorched on a Vine." One cannot help but be touched by the hurt of love lost in so many of the poems. Marie puts her heart and soul into this work and writes about things the reader can readily identify with. She lets us laugh and cry with her. I hope we, the public, will get to see more of Marie's works in the future. She is a truly talented and passionate soul who has alot to share with the world. Thanks Marie.

Marie Liberty, book of poems gives a new meaning to the word poet ! It's a great escape from the ordinary. This is a must read if you have loved, or lost, or need an uplifting moment in your life. Her emtionally uplifting poems are right on. This is a great read ! I recomend this to anyone who has a heart, or just needs to find themselves !

If you're like me, the "you can't say that" mentality, the censorous mentality that seeks comfort through control of others (which exists, like fungus and ugly shoes, in abundance), is a source of extreme irritation. Acting as an antidote to such freedom-snuffing mind-sets is Alan Dershowitz, scholar, attorney, and author. Here he's produced a nice-sized collection of his work, examining the rights we covet, ignore, talk about and fight about, that we live for and sometimes die for.

As Dershowitz says, the contest to develop and maintain rights is a perpetual one, and for the past several decades, he's done his part, and then some. Read this clear-thinking, interesting, and well-written book, and you'll be better equipped to do your share, as well.

It was a pleasure to read new as well as previously published material from Dershowitz. He truly is an inspired thinker as well as a beautiful writer. It is not necessary to agree with all that he presents, for the delight is in the mental sitmulation of working through the basis of the arguement and the arguement itself. His writing style is so unlike his oral presentation, for where the later is often caustic and arrogant, the former is inviting, accepting and instructive. Treat yourself to thinking about some new ideas this summer. A great read!

A good definition of human rights is needed to establish a firm foundation for reliable construction of effective civil rights law. Alan Dershowitz reviews philosophies of human rights (divine law, natural law, legal positivism, utilitarianism, and egalitarianism) and finds them all to be either fatally flawed or inadequate. Dershowitz defines human rights as human injustice prophylactics.

These "nurtural rights" are anchored in a slowly changing collective human experience of injustice. Persistent struggle and persuasive advocates are required to define rights. The process starts with identifying injustices and seeking remedies. This bottom up approach emphasizes the view that human rights are limitations on government power. Dershowitz briefly addresses economic rights and affirmative rights but they are not the focus of this book. His United States legal training and experience is reflected in this book's focus.

For the remainder of the book Dershowitz applies these ideas to a broad range of contemporary United States legal issues. Sometimes he reaches definite legal policy conclusions, such as deferring to legislative laws regarding grandparents visitation rights. He sometimes advocates legislative remedies, such as giving organ recipient candidates who voluntered to donate their organs preference over those who did not volunter to donate. Sometimes he makes fine distinctions, as when he favors seat belt laws but opposes motorcycle helmet laws. Sometimes he delves into history.

He defends freedom of expression, the rights to believe and disbelieve and favors the eventual abolishment of capital punishment, although he makes an exception for pre-emptive targeted assassination of suicide terrorists. He argues persuasively that the lack of restrictions on undercover police scams is a serious problem and he advocates the creation of a scam warrant, similiar to search and wiretap warrants, as a remedy. He argues for a torture warrant applicable when coercion of confession can pre-empt terrorist plans and save lives. He also argues persuasively that the law currently allows psychiatrists to routinely provide "expert" testimony or advice concerning legal matters that are outside of their expertise and that this subjectivity leads to unjust detentions. He argues that judicial review should be used primarily as a check and balance in defense of minority rights against the excesses of untrammeled democratic majoritarian rule. He argues that Senaters should vote for or against Supreme Court nominees based on their own political, judicial, philosophical opinions without deferring to the president but should be deferential towards the president's executive nominees. He argues that unaccountable warrantless surveillance authorized by the attorney general is a major breach of separation of powers and results in politically motivated violations of privacy. And much more...

It is not often that a book comes along that a reader has personal knowledge about. In this case Ms. Kennedy has written a book of interesting self interest and little depth. Their is allot of outrage expressed but very little factual data to support the outrage. I agree with Ms. Kennedy on most of the issues but I only wish that she had documented her charges more completly. A missed opportunity. More smoke than fire. Guilty but not proven. Too bad.

This book informs the reader of some of the activity of the ACLU, and the personal philosophy of the author. I have been a long time supporter of the ACLU, and was interested in learning Ms Kennedy's viewpoint. There are many of us, I assume, who think that the ACLU is an organization that leans a bit to the left. No, says, SSK. True Republicans believe that the less government the better. Such a philosophy means keeping government out of our lives, and enhances our civil liberties. Ms. Kennedy worries (as I do) about the conservative elements of the Republican Party who seem to want less government for themselves, but more for other people, as witnessed by demands for laws pertaining to abortion, school prayer and flag burning. She decries right wing efforts to legislate morality, which reminds me of G.K. Chesterton's statement that morality is how we think other people should act.

It is a shame that Ms Kennedy does not spend more time discussing her experiences in the ACLU, but those events that she does relate show how there is no shortage of politicians and bureaucrats who are willing to restrict the rights of the citizen. While sworn to uphold the US Constitution, elected officials often quickly cater to special interest groups who want their agendas advanced even though they violate the bill of rights.

I'm a fairly liberal Democrat, and found myself agreeing with everything Ms. Kennedy said. Is one of us in the wrong political party?

I'm am only halfway through this book and I think it is one of the most informative books that I have ever read about our civil liberties. This is a book filled with common sense, which most people lack these days. Everyone should read this book or study their history and their rights a little more. I can't believe how much I don't know.

It is a huge debate in Sociology and Political science: does democratization cause economic growth or economic growth democratization. But the authors seem careless: if there is a correlation between the two, it means that economic freedom and democratization must cause economic growth. Why? I don't know! Do you? And that is the first thing our students learn in Methodology courses: correlation does no mean causality at all!

Economic freedom may or may not be the way to spiritual or political happiness, but it certainly seems that it's one of the keys to economic development. Although it's difficult to prove once and for all precisely what economic environments are best for countries, this series attempts to get at the keys. I also believe that if they were to change their opinions on a measure or two, they would have no hesitancy to revise or amend their criteria. Whatever flaw their analyses have, it is a monumental effort they put together each year, and at the very least it's a benchmark for people to debate about. There's information in here that you can't get easily from anywhere else at this price...

We use the resource as a reference for business conditions and navigating the often difficult issues of world business. Its bibliographic resources are excellent, especially for smaller countries for which there are few published data. We have used it for many years, and find it thoughtful, thought-provoking, and insightful.

There is a huge market for books like this, & Morris is very popular, so maybe I'm in the minority, but I thought this book was dreadful. The writing style is corny, the characters are cardboard stereotypes. The portrayal of the Hanoverian monarchs, George II & George III, is wildly inaccurate & unfair. They are portrayed as physically ugly & morally evil. How ridiculous! Morris has repeated every canard ever mentioned about G.III without bothering to do any research to see if they are accurate. George III was a Christian monarch, a man with high moral standards, who did the best he could for his nation, & in any event had no power to do anything to the American colonies. To say that "the angels wept" when he became king is totally silly. Come to think of it, this entire book was silly.

I wasn't too sure about this book at first, but the book overcame my doubts. I found the characters of Daniel & Lyna well written and personable. Even Marian and Leo were well written. Leo is written so dispicable that you want to just slap him around a few times. I like how historical people and facts are written into the book, but I agree with another reviewer that some of the descriptions of George 2 & 3 are just plain wrong. The phrase "the angels of England wept when George 3 ascended the throne" doesn't fit the book or the situation.

However, I do think the author did a good job in portraying how the war in the colonies pitted families against friends and split families between Tory and Colonist.

I would recommend this book.

It was so good. I practically read it in one sitting. I have read the Liberty Bell and this book, Sound the Trumpet they both blew me away. I loved it. They had a little of everything that I like in a book, Romance, Action, Mystery, Drama. I recomend this book to all readers it inspired me to read more of his books. Good job Morris it was great. I couldn't put it down and I know if you read it, you wouldn't be able to set it down either. Don't hesitate it is well worth the money. And if you don't have the money get it from your local library it is excellant. Gilbert has an inspiring gift at writing books, I feel as though the characters are close friends. That I know them. Read the series it is awesome.

In recent decades, under the influence of feminism, the publishing industry has adopted the myth that English words ending in "-man" are sex-specific. While this is absolutely untrue as a matter of etymology (in fact, all people are "men," while only some are "wo-men," which is a subset of "men"), otherwise educated people feel the need to parade their acceptance of this stupidity.

Michael Les Benedict's otherwise serviceable textbook on American constitutional history is a case in point. Both in the Introduction and in a footnote to chapter 1, Benedict apologizes for using the word "Englishmen," as in "the Rights of Englishmen," which he says reflected the "sexist reality" of a bygone age.

Really, this is nonsense on stilts. Not only English, but over two dozen other Indo-European languages have neuter words for "person" that are also used for the masculine. In each case, the feminine subset of "people" is denoted via a modified version of the neuter (or masculine).

If people like Benedict really wanted to get rid of sex-specific language, they would cease using _feminine_ forms, all of which are modified forms of masculine/neuter words (e.g., fe-male, act-ress, host-ess). They don't really care to do that, however; it does not have anything like the Pharisaical thrill of using a neologism in place of a perfectly good, old, English word ("mailcarrier" for "mailman," "server" for "waitress," "English people" for "Englishmen," etc.).

At the beginning of chapter 7, "Andrew Jackson, Democracy, and 'State Rights,'" Benedict says, "The late 1820s and 1830s witnessed the development of a strong belief in the character and intelligence of the common man and woman known as 'Jacksonian Democracy.'" There is no evidence that anyone associated with Andrew Jackson had such views. In fact, to the extent that anyone had them, they were Whigs, Garrisonians, and other OPPONENTS of "Jacksonian Democracy," and they were (from the perspective of 2003) amazingly few.

Readers of this book certainly get a feeling for Benedict's politics and personality from these features. Other than that, the book is generally useful.

This book offers a solid introduction to various aspects of the history of the U.S. Constitution --including its origins, its formation, and its interpretation by the Supreme Court over the past 200-plus years. While it has the feel of a college textbook, I think the book deserves a broader audience. In very clear, if unadorned writing, Benedict covers important cases decided by the Supreme Court, and describes the evolution of judicial doctrine regarding the Bill of Rights, the Fourteenth Amendment, and other provisions of the Constitution. Unlike most books about constitutional history, this one has the added virtue of attempting to relate jurisprudential developments to the broader historical context in which they occurred. Benedict does not try too hard to conceal his own preferences regarding certain decisions of the Court. For example, it is apparent that he is generally supportive of the Warren Court revolution in criminal procedure and other areas of constitutional law, and is opposed to some of the retrenchment that has occurred in the Rehnquist Court. At the same time, Benedict seems to take pains to include citations to legal or historical scholars with whom he disagrees in the excellent bibliographic essays that appear at the end of each chapter of the book. I view this book as a very good reference and as a stimulus to further reading (including Benedict's own book about the Johnson impeachment, which Judge Richard Posner cited in his book regarding the Clinton impeachment).

I am a lawyer who has argued in the Supreme Court, and in my view this book provides a solid introduction to constitutional history. The book seems to have been intended primarily as a textbook for undergraduate courses, but despite its textbook feel I think it can be of interest to a wider audience. Though not written with a great deal of flair, it offers clear descriptions of many important Supreme Court cases, and provides a coherent overview of the broader developments in the Court's jurisprudence regarding the Bill of Rights, the Fourteenth Amendment, and other provisions of the Constitution. Unlike most constitutional histories, Benedict's book has the added benefit of attempting to relate the Court's decisions to the historical context in which they were made. The author strikes me as scholarly, but at the same time he does have a point of view about a number of the Court's decisions which he makes little effort to conceal. For example, Benedict leaves no doubt that he is generally supportive of the Warren Court revolution, and disfavors some of the retrenchment that has taken place in the Rehnquist Court. That said, he seems to have gone to great pains in the excellent bibliographic essays that appear at the conclusion of each of his chapters to include historical or legal literature that offers different assessments than his own. I regard this book as a very good resource, and a stimulus to further reading (including more detailed studies by Benedict himself).