liberty or love! smells like boiling tunafish and sounds like drowning puppy dogs and its eyes look like theyve spent the night striking matches on themselves and its gaze dunks everything it sees in mollasses. how could one of the greatest surrealist texts go almost 70 years before being translated into english? this book is better than bretons two novels and better than soupalts last night of paris. so there. the one problem i had with this book, a book that throws out the constricting conventions of typical literature, was that the glue that sticks all the bizarre scenes together is the worst stalest convention of them all, the pursuit of the muse in the form of an ellusive woman. blahhh. easy to look past though. especially when there are such unforgetably shocking passages as The Sperm Drinkers Club.

"We Can Do It!" Everybody knows the biceps-flexing World War ll icon of Rosie the Riveter, but how many Americans remember what it was that Rosie and her coworkers *did*? They built the ships which helped win the War! Nearly three thousand of those were the Liberty freighters manufactured by Kaiser Steel. Cheap and fast to produce, spartan and relatively simple to operate, these were the ideal vessel for the convoys, the desperately-needed supply-line to the beleagered Allies. Unfortunately, they were also very slow. The ships described by FDR as "Ugly Ducklings" often became "sitting ducks" for wolfpacks of German U-boats and torpedo planes. The Liberty Ship earned the nickname bestowed by its valiant crews of US Merchant Marine and Naval Armed Guard: "Kaiser Coffin". Happily, the young Merchant Marine officer who authored "Liberty Ships Eastward" survived his Murmansk Run with a minimum of danger. His is a light-hearted memoir, anecdotally written, somewhat remniscent of "Mister Roberts". Like Mr. Roberts' Pacific Island run between "Tedium" and "Apathy", Mr. Elliot's Murmansk Run was distinguished by its unprecidented lack of combat action. In his words, his crew faced the more serious risk of going "berzerk with boredom" in the nearly deserted North Russian port. There are no imperiled palm trees in this sailor's yarn; his convoy's only casualties its dog and cat mascots, prey to the aging -- and hungry! -- female stevadores who populated Murmansk. This is a fun, fast-reading little book, complemented by the author's own delightful illustrations. It's a tribute to the humble, long-forgotten Liberty Ship from a seaman who remembers it with affection.

This novel is about ordinary Americans during the time of the revolution. The novel protrays the revolution as America's first civil war, not only because American was fighting against Britain, of which of course it was a part, but also because the revolution divided family and friends. The novel helps bring the revolution to life and is realistic in showing good and bad people on both sides--unlike, for example, the movie The Patriot, which portrays the Americans as being all good and the British as all bad. The Patriot would have been a far better movie had it been based on this book.

I found the book somewhat difficult to get into at first, because there is a bewildering array of characters who I had trouble keeping straight. As I got into the book and the central characters became clear, though, I was able to follow the plot without difficulty.

This book is very romatic from the beginning. Anyone who likes historical romance novels will love this one. You can picture everything in full detail. That is how presice the book is described. You can feel the sparks fly from the beginning to the end. A lovely romance.

This book is a superb biographical women's history resource. It offers biographical sketches of a number of American women in a variety of fields, from abolitionists to socialites. Spans from early U.S. history to the 1980s. Goes beyond the usual selection of political activists. Highly recommended addition to the women's study reference shelf.

Locke presents the reader with a substantial amount of information about his views on human law and the laws of nature. It is an extremely intense, but a very interesting read. I would not have read this book, if it weren't for my political philosophy class, but I am extremely glad that I did because I now have a better understanding of our government, and more importantly of the laws of human nature.

In the first edition of this book Gray offers an indirect-utilitarian interpretation of Mill's moral theory, and argues that this provides a suitable foundation for the Liberty Principle and Mill's liberalism more generally. He contends that the resulting position is a very attractive one. It is a compelling piece of exgesis. In the second edition he still maintains this reading of Mill, but no longer finds Mill's liberalism attractive. His primary complaint is its euro-centrism. He now also buys a number of other objections which he discussed at length and rejected in the first edition, and I found this a little disappointing; it is one thing to say you overlooked a point in your earlier work, but another admit you made numerous bad arguments. And he is very quick to dismiss his own earlier rebuttals; you have the sense that once he gave up on Millian liberalism he felt he had to accuse it of every possible sin.

Foner dilligently attempts to describe post-slavery America and Carribean Islands. Bravo Eric!

As a lover of American law and a 'court-watcher', this title hooked me in immediately. Trying to find the balance between maximum democracy and learned aristocracy has always been a struggle so the main thesis should come as no suprise. Our constitution has rough edges. What is suprising is Hook's diagnosis.

The first thing Hook does is to lambaste those who believe in absolute rights. The first and fifth amendment have clashed. The first amendment can even clash against itself and when these happen, one right must yield to the other. The bill of rights offers us no roadmap in how to decide this so Mr. Hook reaches for the first available solution- that of utilitarianism. I've always been skeptical of 'The greatest good for the greatest number. All others get screwed.' but sometimes it is unavoidable. Hook still seems too eager to use this 'quick-fix' to resolve the issue.

Next, he goes on to textualism in the constitution. Like it or not, there is no text that conveys with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY what it's author meant. Our constitution comes close. 'Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion,' seems pretty clear on the surface but what constitutes a religion, is it a pre-existing establishment congress may not respect or simply their own establishment, and does this imply that congress may offer 'respect' to many religions thereby avoiding the problem by not showing preference to only one? Whew! Difficult stuff. At some point (godels proof), we have to rely on someone's interpretation. Who better than the supreme court? Here, the only skepticism I have is Hook's use of the 'Bork Method' of trying to figure out what the founders- He uses Jefferson and Madison- meant by quoting their personal letters. I know that Hook realizes there was more than two people's intentions, but you'd never think it.
The point of disagreement I have with Mr. Hook is on judicial review. He's right, it's not authorized by the constitution, merely implied. But there are two extremes. One is congress as the final arbiter of which laws are constitutional an which aren't, or the courts could do it. Mr. Hook seems to trust the congress more than the courts. He does not recognize that the danger in democracy is that the people are generally short-sighted and are not likely to read the constitution closely (how many of your friends can name the first ten amendments?). The congress, being, through elections, directly accountable to the people, may not do what is in the best interest of the constitution if it will not help them get re-elected. With the supreme court there is not this difficulty, but another. They are not at all accountable to the people having been appointed for life. The only check on them is that they can only rule on cases brought to them (they must adhere to jurisdiction) but I'd rather the justices (who'se job it is to read the constitution) be safeguarding congress than congress do it themselves. We can either trust Scalia and Ginsburg or Helmes and Daschale. The choice is obvious. The tentative compromise- You'll have to read the book to find out- Hook offers is brilliant so in a round-about way, I agree with him again.

For such an exacting subject, the author must be excused for a little pedantry. This is difficult stuff, but the book is short and if you're into American law and judiciary, you'll not be able to put this one down!!

(ENGLISH) Pluralism & Liberty Miguel Reale Expression and Culture The first edition of the book (1963) appeared under dramatic circumstances of the Brazilian national life. It tried to enlighten and point toward that supposed principles in which most of Brazilian's Nation could agglutinate, and, to overcome political, and religious divisions, trying to compose a unity of political liberty.

(PORTUGUESE) Pluralismo e Liberdade MIGUEL REALE EXPRESSAO E CULTURA A 1a.ed. do livro em 63,apareceu numa circunstancia dramática da vida nacional.Queria indicar aqueles valores em torno dos quais a maioria da Nação poderia aglutinar-se e,acima de divisões políticas e religiosas,compor uma unidade de liberdade política.