5 comments about One L: The Turbulent True Story of a First Year at Harvard Law School.

1. My title says it all: this is one of the best books of non-fiction that I have read. Perhaps I feel this way because I was considering attending law school so I had an interest in it. However, Turow's talent as a writer is evident with this, his first book, so for that reason alone you might enjoy it. Also, if you know of anyone considering law school or perhaps even already there, this book would be a GREAT gift.



2. The book was on time and in very good shape. would use the seller again



3. This is a second read for me. I read this book severwl years ago and I have thought of it often. Scott Turow was a teacher before he went to Law School. This book is really a journal of his first year at Harvard Law. I think it is a wonderful book, that has whetted my appetite to learn more about the Law and to read everything I can on it. I definitely would recommend it to anyone wants to go to Law school.



4. I have had this book for about a year, and just closed it a moment ago after reading it for the second time. It is a great read and highly recommended for anyone considering a graduate degree in any discipline.
   
   Turow's writing is vibrant and filled with emotion and humor. I felt as if I was taking the 1L journey with him: I shifted my opinion of Perini, felt strongly in my opinion of sharing class outlines, and was irritated with Terry's work ethic. As he mentions in the Afterword, he is probably more "compulsive than the average" - this really puts things in perspective when reading the book. Classmates and even professors are described in brutal detail: "he's a great guy and extremely bright... but." That same exposition of classmates and professors continues with the institution itself.
   
   This book is not only entertaining, but is one of the rare first-person accounts of an elite education worth reading. Turow's background as lecturer at Stanford's English Department gives ample credibility to his writing ability. The only negative I could really find in this book is the Afterword - it seems to be a little much. I appreciate his thoughts on the legal system and lawyers in general, but this section could have been reduced by a few pages. Having said that, it does not detract my overall opinion whatsoever.
   
   Read this if you are thinking of law school. Read this if you are thinking about grad school. Read this if you need to be reminded of what hard work it takes to succeed in any field. Read this if you want to be entertained.
   
   Enjoy this book, and thank you for reading this review.
   
   -Jonathan



5. Although written in the 70's, this book walks you through the thoughts of a first year law student.

5 comments about A Piece of Cake: A Memoir.

1. My friend recommended this book to me and I just finished reading it today. It was such a great book, I can't believe its a memoir! Its amazing. A MUST READ!



2. Cupcake Brown truly is a hero of a miserable childhood....so sad. I gotta give her credit for what she has accomplished overcoming all odds to get there. She really gives you and inside view of gang life. The drug/alcohol abuse and the consequences are so graphic, that I found it hard to read sometimes. The only drawback to her book is if you didn't know how to do drugs, you will have an education after reading this book. To me, it sends out the wrong message to vulnerable people.



3. this book will take you through much emotionally. sometimes too much actually. the story goes from childhood through a successful maturation into adulthood.... complete and thorough! warning --> before you take up this book prepare for a really long story with plenty of ups and downs, false starts and having to begin agains.



4. I knew very little about this book when I bought it, so I had no preconceived ideas about the story. Unfortunately, it doesn't take long to realize this book is a fabrication. I realize family law and social services of the 1970's were substandard, but the custodial chain of events in this book makes no sense. And never have I heard of an 11 year old child taking to alcohol and drugs from the first MOMENT of use. And if she did abuse drugs and alcohol to the level described, there's no way this VERY detailed account could be possible. I have experience in this area.... I know! The entire tormented-rebel account of her early years has a self serving quality to it that is similar to the depiction in A Million Little Pieces. I'm sure Mrs. Brown's real life story would have been far more interesting than the embellishment presented here.



5. This is a very important topic substance abuse concerns permeate all facets of our society. Hearing the courageous stories of people's struggle with addiction helps to bring strength to all of us.
   Aaron Bryant: BSW,CSAC Author A Synchronous Memoir of Addiction and Recovery

5 comments about The Revolt of the Cockroach People.

1. Re-Saturday Review of Literature
   Oscar Acosta disappeared in Mexico in 1974, not 1971 (the year of his trip to Las Vegas with Dr. Thompson).



2. Re-Saturday Review of Literature
   Oscar Acosta disappeared in Mexico in 1974, not 1971 (the year of his trip to Las Vegas with Dr. Thompson).



3. This is the most realistic book I have ever seen about Mexican American hippies in Aztlan, the Chicanos of the 1960's neo-freedom movements. It will surely become a collector's item worth saving in this era of gung-ho Americanism which does not know the kind of objectivity Acosta displays with regard to how we think and why we believe as we do. Hunter S. Thompson described the author better than I can in his introduction to the book, highlighting his uniqueness while lamenting his untimely passing. I will write more after I give the book a more thorough second reading.



4. I read this book after finding out that Oscar Zeta Acosta was the fat Samoan lawyer from "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas." Acosta's style is similar, with a lot of drugs and sex with minors. The differences are that Acosta isn't tripping the whole time and he has time to incite political rallies. I love when they protest the Catholic church, or when he pleasures himself with some nubile young high schoolers under a blanket during a sit-in.... For those interested in the turbulent times that was the 60s, this is a must-read.



5. After reading this book, and actually living through those turbulent times of the 60's and 70' s , it was refreshing to read and feel the burning frustration and love that this man was experiencing and the way he expressed his anger against the machine. This type of awareness has been lost , due to us the forefathers of the Chicano Movement, to teach our own and other's children of how important those actions were, so that we may emphasize education, political power and family values. We have implemented a course in Chicano Studies in schools, we now have political representation in our governments, and many more success stories that are due to the work of such people as Cesar Chavez, Ruben Salazar and Corky Gonzales. Oscar Zeta was a man amongst his own that was afraid of nothing and no one.My thanks to him for fighting the powers that be and for creating an example for all of us, regardless of race. You have to stand up for what you believe and Acosta is atrue testament to that.

5 comments about My Grandfather's Son : A Memoir.

1. When I was about 12 years old riding in a car with my neighbors, we passed a black boy walking down the street. One of my "friends" shouted, "Hey Jigaboo!" at him as we drove past. I was appalled and confused, but the mom driving said nothing, and who was I to rock the boat? So I remained silent, imagining the burning hatred in that poor kid . I remember that day vividly. And it occurred in suburban New Jersey in the late 60s, not sweltering Savannah in the early 50s.
   
   Why mention this? Because those who complain about Justice Thomas's whining have, I am sure, never endured relentless slights such as that. I was fat, I didn't fit in, and I was lonely as a child. But my pre-occupations were all internal; I didn't have to live with random strangers driving by feeling as if they could insult me with impunity.
   
   So the book begins on a roll, the story of an abandoned and neglected little boy managing to find his way to his grandfather's house. And there, life changed. Oh my, how it did. The life he describes sounds like the poor farmer's life since the beginning of time. His back and his brow brought forth the food on his table. This was extraordinary reading. I was living just a few years later and a few miles away, but this life is as remote from mine as the life of a Medieval peasant or Roman street urchin. But though he tried, he never really got into what his life was about. I wanted more details. And when he got older and wanted to rebel, why didn't he? What thoughts did he have? Just a bit too quick, though still compelling and worth reading.
   
   But after that, it feels more like a campaign biography than a harrowing memoir. Just a bit too nice, a bit too pat. He has some struggles, he antagonizes and breaks with his grandfather, he embraces the black liberation thinking, he marries and divorces (without really offering much explanation), he gets some jobs he likes and some he doesn't, and becomes the star pupil of Jack Danforth, who greases some skids and gets him to Washington.
   
   And while I'm sure the work he did at the EEOC was important and useful and challenging, it wasn't all that interesting. The overseer of a bureaucracy is not the star of very many films for good reason. And again, the tone is just a tad too nice, a tad too distant. Too many "thank yous" and "good jobs."
   
   Then comes the confirmation hearings, the grubbiest and most sordid attack any federal nominee has endured in my lifetime. And though I'm sure he could say much more, he again pulls his punches. And leaves me feeling as if much more went on than he related. Somehow the raw, visceral hatred and malign political slander that he endured never really generate the kind of fiery prose that seems appropriate. Justice Thomas is a fine man and a fine judge. Harry Reid, who, I hope, will be sent back to the Nevada desert where he belongs, is typical of the leftists who continue to despise this uppity black man for refusing to kowtow to his betters. Bear that in mind when reading the negative reviews here. But I should have liked this book far more than I did. Just pulled too many punches and was insufficiently introspective.



2. This might be the best autobiography/memoir I've read. As has been mentioned elsewhere even if you don't agree with Justice Thomas's politics this is still an enjoyable read. Knowing his background now, it is amazing how far he has come and what he has accomplished and yet in the book he still does not come across as bragging. He has a very easy going and enjoyable writing style that as you read makes you feel as though you could be listening to a story from your next door neighbor not a supreme court justice. If you are considering the book it's a good read.



3. 
   I was not a fan of Clarence Thomas before I started this book, because I disagree with him on most issues, particularly those related to race. However, I was curious to discover how he had come to the conclusions that he has reached. I love to hear compelling arguments. Hearing why someone believes a certain thing allows me to respect their final conclusion even if I disagree with it.
   
   Thomas' book made me even less of a fan of his. Thomas is bereft of introspection. He is simply unable to see himself, his choices or his experiences in an objective light, and that causes him to make continuous false assertions and false conclusions throughout the book.
   
   For example, on page 95 he writes: "It turned out that blacks were responsible for almost 80 percent of violent crimes committed against blacks, and killed over 90 percent of black murder victims. This was a bitter pill to swallow. Until then I'd ignored the obvious implication of black-on-black crime rates. After I worked on that case, I knew better than to assume that whites were responsible for all the woes of blacks, and stopped throwing around the word `oppression' so carelessly."
   
   On its face this is an example of faulty reasoning. The white power structure of the United States has enslaved, segregated and systematically discriminated against blacks for hundreds of years. That created despair and hopelessness among blacks, which in turn expresses itself through violence. Against whom will blacks commit violent acts? The people nearest them. That's the reason that wealthy people flee the inner city and build gated communities. They believe that putting distance between themselves and the poor will protect them from crime.
   
   By and large, black people don't live, work or attend school near white people. They live near other black people, therefore the crimes they commit are mostly against other black people.
   
   The same logic applies to white people. The vast majority of the crimes that white people commit are against other white people. When a white teenager gets into a fight, chances are his opponent is another white kid. When a white husband beats his wife, chances are she's white. When white kid goes to school and shoots his classmates, chances are most of them are white. Most crimes are proximity driven. Violence touches the closest available victims.
   
   That's fairly simple logic, yet Thomas fails to make that connection, and his blindness is even more striking when you consider the words he uses to describe his own "oppressive" experiences as a black man in America.
   
   1) On page 5, he describes his life in Pinpoint at "unforgiving."
   
   2) On Page 6, he says the tenement flat he lived in was "the foulest kind of urban squalor."
   
   3) On page 7, he says of his mother, "It was as though her job sapped all the hope out of her. She worked to stay alive and keep us alive, nothing more."
   
   4) On page 8, he says, "never before had I known the nagging chronic hunger ...'
   
   5) On page 35, other boys at his white high school shunned him on the basketball court. He writes, "I couldn't bear to know. Every step was agony."
   
   6) Also on page 35, a student yells the N-word at him. He writes, "I felt as if my soul had been pierced."
   
   7) On page 37, "I was stunned to learn that Richard Chisolm had dropped out, leaving me as the school's only black student."
   
   8) On page 41, "I was the only black in the group, and when the management finally decided to throw someone out, they picked me."
   
   9) Also on page 41, "I deserved the super-jock trophy traditionally given to the outstanding athlete. No trophy was given out that year ... I couldn't help thinking that I'd been passed over because I was black."
   
   10) While he's waiting to hear his bar exam results he said, "my nerves were shot, in part, because one of the blacks in my bar-review course had warned me that Missouri had a `rule of two,' meaning that only two blacks were allowed to pass each year ... I found this warning impossible to ignore."
   
   11) On page 269, he writes, "As a child I had been warned by Daddy that I could be picked up off the streets of Savannah and hauled off to jail or the chain gang for no reason other than I was black."
   
   12) Also on page 269, "the fear (the police) instilled in southern blacks, a fear that had helped to keep segregation alive."
   
   13) On page 47 he writes, "The more injustice I saw, the angrier I became, and the angrier I became, the more injustices I saw ..."
   
   14) On page 51 he writes, "Racism had become the answer to all my questions, the trump card that won every argument."
   
   15) On page 27, he writes that his grandfather rescued him by taking him in. "To stay there would have doomed me to a dismal life of ignorance, perhaps even of crime--a life lost before it started."
   
   It goes on and on. Thomas makes constant references to the injustices that he suffered as a result of his race, and the anger that boiled in him because of it. Yet, when he reads a statistic about black-on-black crime, he's incapable of imagining that most poor blacks felt just as oppressed and angry as he did, but they didn't have the intellect or the opportunities to escape as he did. Point 15 above reveals that could see that his life might have led to crime if he had stayed where he was, but he refuses to acknowledge the plight of the many kids who were stuck in those cruel environments.
   
   Throughout the book, Thomas seemed to judge his one life by one standard and the lives of all other blacks by a separate standard. This double standard and/or lack of self-awareness permeates virtually every major premise that he makes in this book.
   
   On page 63 he writes on the subject of being black in America, "Now I understood for the first time that we were expected to be full of rage. It was our role--but I didn't want to play it anymore. I'd already been doing it for too long, and it hadn't improved my life. I had better things to do than be angry."
   
   This statement is grossly inaccurate. The white establishment did not expect blacks to be full of rage any more than a cattle farmer expects his herd to be full of rage. There might be the occasional malcontent to deal with, but overall docility is the expectation. That's why the race riots and marches of the 1960s were so shocking to whites. Black people were resisting their fate. They were enraged and out making trouble. The white establishment fought back with fire hoses, police dogs, batons, guns and assassinations, trying to quell this uprising and put blacks back in their place. Docility was the expectation, not rage.
   
   In fact, Thomas himself makes the point about docility on page 31: "Blacks in Savannah rarely came into contact with whites, and when we did the encounters were brief and not too unpleasant, since our second-class status was so firmly accepted that no unpleasantness was needed to enforce it."
   
   On page 22, he writes, "No matter how curious you might be about the way white people lived, you didn't go where you didn't belong. That was a recipe for jail or worse."
   
   Second, Thomas' statement that he was going to stop being angry was inaccurate because he clearly didn't stop. He is an extremely angry, bitter man who, despite his many successes, feels that he has been wronged by the world.
   
   Even as he is climbed higher in the governmental and judicial ranks he still used extreme words to describe his state of mind.
   
   1) While he's working for Monsanto, page 117, "My sense of hopelessness was intensified ..."
   
   2) A jogger passes him and he writes, "I was humiliated..."
   
   3) Page 136, during his divorce he felt "despair" and "anguish"
   
   4) When he took the job at EEOC, he writes on page 143, "I was overwhelmed by a feeling of hopelessness."
   
   5) Page 144, "I sat at my desk and wept."
   
   6) Page 151, the sight of his name in the Washington Post, "sent me into something close to panic."
   
   7) He and Virginia are buying a house, page 189, "after answering countless humiliating questions ..."
   
   8) Page 190, when their loan was disapproved, "Virginia and I were so despondent ..."
   
   9) During the Supreme Court confirmation hearing, Page 246, they were trying to kill me."
   
   If a Yale-educated, highly recruited career man like Thomas can feel these extremely negative emotions about his lot in life, then why is it so hard for him to understand the humiliation, hopelessness and despondency of millions of blacks who have are far less fortunate than he is?
   
   Another example of flawed reasoning is revealed in his position on racial preferences in hiring. Throughout the book Thomas maintains that racial preferences are bad, that blacks who are admitted based on their race are being set up for failure and that applications should be race neutral. But his own life provides counter-evidence to his position.
   
   On page 38 he writes, "I briefly fantasized about going to Georgia Tech or West Point ... yet hope soon succumbed to reality, since I also knew that it would be all but impossible for a black kid like me to get into either school, and I decided to stick to my religious studies."
   
   If a young man of Thomas' intellect is too intimidated to even apply to those schools that speaks volumes about the oppression that he has experienced in his life, which produced a hopelessness or deep pessimism about his prospects. If Thomas thought that way, what hope is there for other blacks of slightly lesser intelligence, who might have succeeded in college if only they'd had an opportunity?
   
   Ironically, Thomas was admitted to Yale based partly on his race.
   
   On page 74, he writes, "I thought of myself more as disadvantaged than black, and I asked Yale to take that fact into account when I applied, not thinking that there might be anything wrong with doing so. I simply took it for granted that Yale was giving me a break because I was poor (and especially since that poverty was in part due to racial discrimination) .... I had been told that minority students were admitted under the same standards as legacy students, and why couldn't Yale be willing to take the same chance on a poor black kid from Georgia who'd always managed to achieve against the odds ..."
   
   So when he personally needed racial preferences, he was a fan of them. However, the moment he didn't personally need racial preferences, he became an opponent of them.
   
   On page 75 he writes, "After graduating from Yale, I met a black alumnus of the University of Michigan Law School who told me that he'd made a point of not mentioning his race on his application. I wished with all my heart that I'd done the same." He doesn't need the preference any more, so now he opposes even the preference that he received to get into law school.
   
   His feelings about this issue are so irrational that he now hates Yale University for admitting him. On page 99 he writes, "As a symbol of my disillusionment, I peeled a 15-cent price sticker off of a package of cigars and stuck it on the frame of my law degree to remind myself of the mistake I'd made by going to Yale ... Instead of hanging it on the wall of my Supreme Court office, I stored it in the basement of my Virginia home--with the sticker still on the frame."
   
   But his hatred of racial preferences is not uniform. As he continued through his career, he became a fan of them whenever they might benefit himself or his friends.
   
   1) On page 114, he describes his job at Monsanto: "My disillusion deepened when I noticed that Monsanto employed a number of talented blacks who should have been moving up the corporate ladder far more quickly. I went to the black manager in charge of affirmative-action compliance to complain about his complacent attitude toward these gifted young managers.".
   
   2) On page 158, he contradicts the point above with a story about his arrival at the EEOC: "My predecessor had charged Sears with failing to hire ore promote enough blacks and women to the company's more lucrative commission-sales jobs. In fact though, there were no actual job applicants or employees alleging discrimination; the charges were based solely on the fact that these groups were numerically underrepresented relative to their presence in the population." This numerical argument is nearly identical to the one he made at Monsanto, but since Thomas will not personally benefit, he is now opposed to using numbers as evidence of discrimination.
   
   Thomas employed racial preferences in his personal decision-making:
   
   1) On page 140 after he takes over at EEOC, "Gil Hardy called me up and asked me to `help a sister' who was leaving his firm. Her name was Anita Hill ... I agreed to interview her. Not only did I feel an obligation to help my fellow blacks, but I remembered how hard it had been for me to land a job after graduating from Yale, and I didn't want to treat her as badly as I was treated."
   
   2) On page 181, "Besides, Virginia was white, and I had no inclination to date outside of my race."
   
   3) On page 193 he writes, "After the election ... I drafted a memo to the new president-elect suggesting that he take a more positive approach on racial issues ... recommended that he consider appointing blacks to positions of responsibility other than the race-related ones they'd traditionally held."
   
   4) Page 193, "As long as I was still at EEOC though I wanted to continue pushing for the appointments of minorities to senior positions."
   
   5) On page 244, he wrote this slightly nonsensical and entirely contradictory passage: "I wanted to show that a predominantly minority and female agency could be run as professionally as any other--and that it could be done without the benefit of affirmative action or quotas. All that was necessary, I believed, was a concerted effort to give those who had been excluded an opportunity to do their best." Isn't that was preferences and affirmative action were all about?
   
   He also is opposed to the "white" government getting involved in the lives of black people, trying to fix the problems in black America. On page 106, he writes: "The problems faced by blacks in America would take quite some time to solve, and the responsibility for solving them would fall largely on black people." That's a constant theme. He doesn't believe that blacks should rely on white people to solve their problems.
   
   But throughout his life, Thomas been bailed out by a steady succession of white people and the white establishment. On page 57 he and several other students walk out of Holy Cross in protest of punishments handed down to black demonstrators. Immediately, he regrets walking out and is desperate to return. "Within a few hours my problem was solved. Art Martin and Ted Wells, the leaders of the BSU, persuaded the administration to let us return to campus ... I will forever be indebted to Art, Ted and the school administration for giving me a second chance."
   
   He's basically saying, "Thank you, white administrators. I stepped out of line on what I thought was a matter of principle, but that I instantly regretted. You graciously let me back in. I won't act up any more."
   
   Thomas is a self-admitted terrible money manager, but it didn't matter, because he always had white friends to bail him out.
   
   1) Page 93, after failing to make money by selling his blood he writes, "Finally I called the attorney general to ask for help, and Alex Netchvolodoff, his administrative assistant, arranged for me to do some part time work in the St. Louis office."
   
   2) On page 100, he writes that he borrowed "small sums from my colleagues to make ends meet."
   
   3) On page 102 he has more money problems, and "once again the attorney general saved the day; I mentioned the problem to him and he referred me to the president of a local bank, a friendly small-town type who believed that character mattered as much as collateral. He took Jack Danforth's word for my character and agreed to lend me the money."
   
   4) Page 102, "I started going out with them after work ... since I had so little money, one of them always picked up the tab."
   
   5) He needed a job so on page 109 "once again I spoke to the attorney general, and he put me in touch with George Capps, a businessman friend from St. Louis, who suggested in turn that I approach Monsanto .... When the company offered me a job in early 1977, I accepted."
   
   6) During his divorce, page 135, "I was so broke that I often had to borrow small sums of money from friends in order to take the bus to work."
   
   7) Page 174, after his credit card is seized and destroyed at the car rental counter, "I had to beg him to let me rent a car so that I could get to my meeting."
   
   8) Page 189, "I was up to my ears in debt and doubted whether I could pass the kind of credit check necessary to obtain a mortgage, but thanks to Virginia's income, our overall financial picture had improved considerably."
   
   9) Page 190, he and Virginia are not approved for their loan, so "with the help of her parents and a persistent young man at the mortgage company our prayers were answered."
   
   10) Page 276, "Senator Hatch had insisted on paying."
   
   11) Page 283, "Virginia's parents picked up the enormous tab."
   Where would Thomas be without all of these white people to keep feeding him money and picking up the tab for him? He might be in the same boat as the blacks in the neighborhood where he grew up. And it's significant that the attorney general is a high ranking member of the white establishment. Thomas is convinced that blacks should not rely on the white establishment for solutions, but when he's in a bind, who does he call?
   
   He repeatedly criticizes blacks for what he calls a "knee-jerk" aversion to the Republican Party. On page 125, he writes, "That kind of all-us-black-folks-think-alike nonsense wasn't part of my upbringing, and I saw it as nothing more than another way to herd blacks into a political camp."
   
   Yet on page 179, he writes, "blacks didn't vote for Republicans ... as a result there was little interest within the administration in helping a constituency that wouldn't do anything in return to help the President ... One political consultant was honest enough to tell me straight out that since the President's reelection strategy didn't include the black vote, there was no role for me."
   
   So Thomas heard from the horse's mouth that the Republican party didn't court black people, yet he is still critical of black people who refuse to vote Republican. It seems totally rational that the Republican party doesn't waste time courting people who won't vote Republican, and it's equally rational that black people don't waste their votes on a party that's not interested in their issues.
   
   Why does Thomas criticize the logic of blacks, while praising (or at least accepting without challenge) the logic of the Republican party?
   These two passage illustrate the reason that most black Americans feel little or no connection with Thomas. He had the type of tough childhood that should make him understand the plight of black people, and use his position of power to improve their lives. But he doesn't. As a general rule, he scorns anything political that black people say or do, while he has immediate respect for anything political that white people say or do.
   
   Another example, on page 147, he writes, "One day I mentioned to a senior career staffer that I didn't understand why there was so little focus on the educational role of black colleges. He snapped back that they had no right to exist. His statement floored me, though in the next instant I realized that it was implicit in the position taken by the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, which were obsessed with the racial composition of while colleges to the virtual exclusion of all other considerations. At no time in our discussions with these groups did the education of black students take center stage. All they seemed to care about were the numbers."
   
   So a white man says that black colleges have no right to exist, and Thomas immediately aims his criticism at the NAACP. To understand how infuriating that is to black Americans, imagine that an extremely powerful Jewish-American leader was in a conversation with someone who said, "Israel had no right to exist," and he ignored that comment and instead criticized Jewish advocacy group.
   Black people do not like Clarence Thomas, because Clarence Thomas doesn't like black people.
   
   Further evidence of Thomas' lack of introspection is his disdain for "victim" status. He doesn't want the government to create special programs for blacks, that would make them "more dependent on the government. That would amount to a new kind of enslavement, one which ultimately relied on the generosity--and the ever-changing self-interest--of politicians and activists." (p. 56) But his position is very hypocritical, because he spends the bulk of the book portraying himself as a victim. Early in his life, he was a victim of racial injustice by whites. Later, he became a victim of angry blacks and liberal whites who resented his so-called "honesty".
   
   Plus he constantly describes himself as a reluctant character in his own life. Occasionally he says, "I really wanted to do (fill in the blank)" but more often he says, "I didn't want to do (fill in the blank) but so-and-so insisted that I give it a try."
   
   1) He got married against his better judgment. Page 69, "I was still full of doubts, and a bolt of sharp, sickening pain shot through my body as we said our vows."
   
   2) Page 75, he resented Yale, believing that the school had played a trick on him by considering his race in admissions.
   
   3) He repeatedly brags that his father refused to take welfare and he told a Washington Post reporter that welfare had ruined his mother's ambition. But on page 76, when he needed financial aid at Yale, he was the recipient of a wealth-redistribution system that worked just like welfare. He writes, "In the end all Yale had to offer me was the tuition postponement option, a program in which the cost of student loans was spread across a class of students who repaid it as a group according to their means, with the greatest burden falling on those with the largest incomes. I didn't know what else to do so I signed on the dotted line."
   
   4) Page 86, "I had grave reservations about working at a predominantly white institution, subject to the whims of white superiors
   
   5) Page 96, he's going to argue his first case before the Missouri Supreme Court, and he writes, "Couldn't someone else argue this case?"
   
   6) Page 119, Senator Danford invites him to join his staff. He writes, "I was interested so long as I wouldn't have to work on civil-rights issues or matters involving race ... (ultimately) I couldn't say no."
   
   7) Page 137, he gets a call from the Office of Presidential Personnel asking him to become assistant secretary for civil rights in the Department of Education. "I expected to say no .... I didn't care to work in a civil-rights post. I had no background in that area, and was sure that I'd been singled out solely because I was black .... I decided to give it a try."
   
   8) Page 149, President Reagan is looking for a new head of the EEOC. Thomas writes, "Pen ended our conversation by asking what my answer would be if the president himself asked me to take the job. I hesitated, then reluctantly admitted that I'd have to say yes."
   
   9) On becoming a Supreme Court Justice, page 210, "I knew I didn't want the job, but I also knew I'd need to come up with a better answer than that if I was going to say no to the president of the United States ... I tried to think of a way to convince President Bush to choose somebody else."
   
   I don't completely understand why he presents himself as such a passive figure in his own career. I believe it's probably to puff himself up, so that he can say, "They pursued ME. I didn't even want this job, but they were desperate to have ME."
   
   Regarding Anita Hill, I never had an opinion about her allegations, because I didn't follow Thomas' confirmation hearing very closely, and knew little of the charges. After reading Thomas's version of things, I still don't know if her allegations were true (because I still don't know exactly what they were), but I found Thomas' portrayal of his interactions with her to be somewhat unbelievable. Everything he says about her raises questions about his motives.
   
   As I mentioned earlier, he initially hired her at the behest of a friend because she was black and he felt an obligation to help a fellow black lawyer.
   
   1) Page 156, I also had to do something about Anita Hill, who'd been pestering Anna Jenkins, my interim secretary, as had Gil. I reluctantly brought her aboard and the first thing she did was claim the largest office in my suite." Question: Why did he let her take the largest office? He was the boss, he could have rejected her request.
   
   2) Page 171, just after his grandparents died, "In the midst of my grief, Anita Hill had been nagging me to write her a letter of recommendation, and the sooner I did it, the sooner she'd be out of my hair." Question: Why did he need her out of his hair?
   
   3) Page 173 he sends Anita to a conference in Oklahoma and she gets a job on the faculty at the school. "much to my relief, Anita accepted Dean Kothe's offer." Question: Why would he feel relief?
   
   4) Page 230, "Dave Kyllo, another EEOC staffer, had asked her if Anita Hill would say anything negative about me." Question: Thomas managed more than 800 employees at EEOC, why would a third party specifically suggest that Anita Hill would say something negative?
   
   5) On page 241, on of Thomas' advisors warns him that the FBI wants to come talk to him. Thomas writes, "Had some disgruntled employee at EEOC come to the FBI at the last minute to lodge some complaint against me?" Question: Up to that point, the attacks against him had come from a wide array of sources, so why would he immediately assume that the FBI wanted to talk to him about the EEOC?
   
   6) On page 243, the FBI asked if Thomas had wanted to date Anita Hill, and he says, "Goodness no!" He says the suggestion is "laughable." Question: Why would it be laughable? She was an attractive, intelligent young lady. On page 172, he writes, "Anita stormed into my office and accused me of favoring Allyson because I liked light-skinned women." And on page 229, he writes, "Of course, I had my share of romantic involvements between marriages, but there was nothing peculiar about that: I was a divorced man in his thirties." Given all of that, why would it seem "laughable" for someone to ask whether he was interested in Anita Hill?
   
   7) When Hill testified before the Senate, Thomas refused to watch. Page 271, "Why would I have watched it?" Question: One would assume that he would watch it for the same reason that he read all of those cases to prepare for his confirmation. He would watch so that he could refute the "ridiculous" allegations against him.
   
   Overall, I found his comments about Anita Hill to be incomplete and confusing. It would have been more credible if he had described their working relationship in detail and shown us the full extent of their friendship. By describing her and the relationship in such limited ways, everything he says provokes more questions and make him seem guilty even if he isn't
   
   More evidence of Thomas' lack of introspection shows up in the frequency with which he contradicts himself:
   
   1) When President Bush is thinking about nominating him for the Supreme Court, Thomas writes, "I tried to think of a way to convince the President to choose somebody else. The obvious reasons were my relative youth and inexperience--I'd just turned forty-three the week before and had been on the Court of Appeals only fifteen months ..." Yet, Thomas seems insulted then when the American Bar Association basically agrees with his own assessment that he's relatively young and inexperienced. Page 228 "The ABA's evaluation team announced that it considered me to be `qualified' for the Supreme Court. By withholding its highest ranking, `well qualified' the ABA opened the door for my liberal opponents to attack my competence."
   
   2) Page 231, "I expected to be attacked as unqualified to sit on the Supreme Court. What this really meant, of course, was that I dared to hold views of which my opponents disapproved. Had I been a liberal, they would have overlooked my youth and comparative inexperience, not to mention the fact that I'd been admitted to Yale Law School in part because I was black." Yes, that's true, but if he'd been a liberal, conservative groups would have attacked him for these same reasons.
   
   3) He routinely rails against people who expect him to adhere to stereotypes, or who advocate policies based on stereotypes, yet throughout the book makes broad, sweeping statements about "white liberals" and he even uses the phrase "left-wing zelots" a few times.
   
   4) During the confirmation process he explains how his mother, who had always voted for Democrats became so disgusted with the attacks on her son that she vowed to never vote for another Democrat. He seems unaware of the reality that if he had been a liberal, then Republicans would have been attacking him during the confirmation process, and his mother would dislike Republicans. He uses her as an example to bash the Democratic party, when really, it's simply an example of a mother being loyal to her son.
   
   Those are four examples, but throughout the book Thomas says things that are incongruous. These mistakes are indicative of intellectual laziness or a lack of introspection. Given Thomas' long track record of intellectual success, I doubt that mental laziness is his problem. I simply believe that he has a large ego that keeps him from seeing himself and/or judging himself accurately.
   
   Conclusion, Clarence Thomas had a rough childhood. He lived in squalid conditions, he was surrounded by illiterate blacks, yet somehow he managed to rise up through the U.S. power structure to win a coveted seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. There is no question that he is emblematic of the American dream. In this country, even someone from the most humble beginnings can achieve greatness through hard work, intellect and a certain amount of luck.
   
   To understand why black Americans, in general, have no affection for Thomas, one need only read a line from page 280. Thomas writes, that Senator Strom Thurmond was at his side right after the senate voted to approve his nomination. "It seemed ironic that a man who had once been a fervent advocate of racial segregation had ended up supporting my nomination ..."
   
   Actually, that's not ironic at all. It seems pretty clear that Strom Thurmond has the same portrait of Thomas that black Americans have of the new Justice. The only difference is that Thurmond admires Thomas for his position on racial issues and black Americans revile him for it.
   
   Thomas will argue that he has always stood up for what he believed in, and he believes he knows how to help black Americans, but it's interesting that in 289 pages of text he offers only two concrete ideas to help blacks. One is ending all government programs that currently help them. Somehow he's convinced that blacks, left to their own devices, will do better than if they have government assistant. And the second, is that he negotiated a scholarship program with Sears during his first years with EEOC. Ironically, this program included a preference for the children of minorities and female employees. So, once again, he contradicts himself. On the one hand, he's opposed to preferences, but when he creates something, it includes preferences. Beyond these two ideas, he doesn't offer any other affirmative suggestion about what should be done.
   
   Does he have a rational basis for his Conservative beliefs? I assume that he does, but he had 289 pages of text in which to present and defend his beliefs and he never did. He made only a handful of statements regarding his belief that black people would be better off if the government got out of their lives, but he never presented a real argument to support that position.
   
   Overall, I found both Thomas and his book to be unimpressive.



4. No one would expect to discover the path that led Clarence Thomas to become a Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. This is certainly an example of the American Dream. You can't start much lower and end up much higher than did Clarence Thomas.



5. There are times in ones life where you're told something so often and with such passion you simply believe it to be true. In Justice Thomas' case, all I heard since the 90's was he was a traitor to his race, the GOP's token, and in some cases, a harasser.
   
   After reading this book, it becomes quite obvious those constructs are flat out false and lies.
   
   This book is for anyone with an open mind who wants to be inspired by a true American success story. H.L. Mencken once said that Americans detest someone who tries to tell them the truth. Thomas has lived a life where all he wanted to do was speak the truth (about politics, his life, etc) and has been vilified in some political circles.

5 comments about The Great Depression: A Diary.

1. BOOK REVIEW: Benjamin Roth's 'The Great Depression: A Diary' Brings Nation's Greatest Financial Meltdown to Life
   
   Reviewed By David M. Kinchen
   
   The 'forgotten men' of today are the doctors, lawyers, insurance men, etc. They are down and out and can do very little about it. -- Benjamin Roth, diary entry Nov. 10, 1933
   
   Image removed by sender.That refrain -- echoing Franklin D. Roosevelt's "Forgotten Man" radio speech of April 7, 1932, when he was still governor of New York -- runs through Benjamin Roth's "The Great Depression: A Diary" (PublicAffairs, $15.95 quality paperback, 288 pages, edited by James Ledbetter and Daniel B. Roth, with an introduction by Ledbetter) much as the Mahoning River runs through Roth's hometown of Youngstown, Ohio.
   
   Benjamin Roth was born in New York City in 1894 but he moved with his family while still very young to Youngstown. He received a law degree and moved back to Youngstown after serving as an army officer during World War I. When the stock market crashed in 1929, he had been practicing law for about ten years, representing local businesses for the most part. After nearly two years, he began to grasp the magnitude of what had happened to American economic life, and he began writing down his impressions in a diary that he maintained intermittently until he died in 1978.
   
   Youngstown, midway between New York City and Chicago and about halfway between Cleveland and Pittsburgh, was a thriving industrial city of about 170,000 people at the time of the October 1929 stock market crash. Today it has about 78,000 residents, with legendary employers like Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. long gone. (A personal note: I worked in the quality control department of YS&T's mill in Lake County, Indiana for about a year in the mid-1960s, before I joined the reportorial staff of the Hammond (IN) Times in January 1966). If Pittsburgh and Chicago were the centers of Big Steel, Youngstown was home to "Little Steel" companies like Youngstown Sheet and Tube and Republic Steel.
   
   Most of the entries cover the period from 1931 to the end of 1941, after the Pearl Harbor attack and the declaration of war against the U.S. by Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy on Dec. 11, 1941. Roth interjects brief updates with dates in the 1940s, 1950s and even the 1970s, and the editors provide background essays to explain some of the events Roth writes about. All in all, the package is an excellent brief introduction to the Great Depression, with anecdotes that will resonate with today's readers.
   
   In addition to his comments about the lack of work for lawyers, doctors, dentists and other professionals during the entire period of his evocative diary, Roth records the travails of working class people at a time of industrial strife and massive unemployment. He doesn't neglect the plight of farmers in Ohio and other Midwestern farm belt states, including the epicenter of farm foreclosures, the state of Iowa. Roth devotes a great deal of space in his diary to real estate, which must have been a big part of his law firm's business before October 1929 -- and very little after with the almost total collapse of the nation's real estate industry.
   
   Roth was a Republican who voted for Hoover's re-election in 1932 when FDR won in a landslide, and for Alf Landon in 1936 when FDR swamped Landon in an even bigger landslide. In 1940 Roth campaigned for GOP Presidential candidate Wendell Willkie on a "no third term" for FDR campaign. Although he worked for the Mahoning County NRA, his beliefs that the New Deal was a socialist plot against America pervade the diary. Like people today, Roth struggled to understand how the world's largest economy could collapse so quickly after the events of October 1929. He obviously had plenty of time to read sitting in his frequently empty law offices and he cites dozens of books that he perused to educate himself about finance, investing and economics.
   
   Here's Roth's entry for March 8, 1933, four days after FDR's inauguration:
   
   We are greeted by a very dramatic announcement this morning. At 1:30 a.m. this morning as his first official act, President Roosevelt issues a proclamation ordering every bank in the United States to close for four days -- including the U.S. Treasury and the Federal Reserve Banks. It now appears that during the past two weeks foreign countries and domestic depositors have withdrawn gold from the U.S. Treasury at an alarming rate. This proclamation also forbids exportation of gold. As a result of this announcement the U.S. will be technically off the gold standard for four days. I don't see how the government can resume gold payments at the end of that time because all Europe will be waiting at the Treasury doors to withdraw gold. In Youngstown every bank and loan company is closed to all business and large placards in the windows bear notice of the President's proclamation. Everybody is fearful of the immediate future. In the meantime all over U.S. plans re (sic) going forward to issue scrip against bank deposits. Likewise every stock exchange in the country is closed.
   
   It's important to remember than before the passage of the Banking Act of 1933 -- commonly called the Glass-Steagall Act for its congressional sponsors -- later in 1933, there was no federal insurance on bank deposits. Glass-Steagall separated "boring" commercial banking and "risky" investment banking and created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Most of Glass-Steagall was discarded in the latter part of the Clinton Administration, but the FDIC was retained.
   
   The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 effectively removed the "Chinese Wall" that previously existed between Wall Street investment banks and depository banks and has been blamed by some -- including the present reviewer -- for exacerbating the damage caused by the collapse of the subprime mortgage market that led to the current financial crisis.
   
   About the editors: James Ledbetter is the editor of "The Big Money," [...] Web site on business and economics. Prior to joining Slate, he was deputy managing editor of [...]a financial news site. His most recent book is Dispatches for the New York Tribune: Selected Journalism of Karl Marx. He is also the author of Starving to Death on $ [...]: The Short, Absurd Life of The Industry Standard and Made Possible By...: The Death of Public Broadcasting in the United States. He lives in New York, NY. Daniel Roth is a son of Benjamin Roth and is the chairman of the law firm of Roth, Blair, Roberts, Strasfeld & Lodge in Youngstown, Ohio. He is the co-founder of National Data Processing Corporation and the co-founder, Chairman and CEO of Torent, Inc (formerly Toro Enterprises, Inc.) He divides his time between Youngstown, Ohio and Florida.



2. I read the book in two days. It clearly shows (if one is willing open their mind) that government intervention creates more problems than it solves. Another look at how FDR really governed without a PC re-write of history. Very helpful information for those looking to invest in today's economy.



3. This was an excellent read. This was not an exciting novel, but a chance to learn from 'Grandpa' who practiced law during the depression. You get a businessman's perspective on the business climate, the stock market and the side by side learning as Roth tries to learn the path to riches through stock investing, although he never had enough money to actually invest. Because he never could invest, his color commentary is not influenced my major gains or losses as an investor might have been. Most importantly, the reader really appreciates the Clement's quote: history does not repeat but certainly rhymes. All investors, especially speculators should read this book.



4. Benjamin Roth's first hand account of The Great Depression from 1931 to 1941 was a very fascinating and personal read that provided not only historical perspective on the events of the time, but also a friendly voice and opinion of the days events.
   
   What really set this book apart for me was the authors first hand account of events as they unfolded, versus most historical accounting of the period which are mostly a retrospects. Mr. Roth fills us in on current events as they unfolded in America during the time, his opinion on the situations (which leaned conservative) and his predictions. A fun bit of the book is that Mr. Roth would actually go back and review entries and add updates such as "These predictions turned out to be completely wrong.".
   
   I think this book also hit home for me due to the financial situation we're currently going through these days in America. You read about Mr. Roth's trepidations towards FDR and his "New Deal", constantly warning of out of control government spending and the impending inflation boom (which never came).
   
   My wife and I were talking and this book seems to beg the question of what would have come of the American economy if World War 2 hadn't started. Would we have continued on a downward spiral of inflation? It's not fun think about but I really feel that this book paints an accurate (if not a bit biased, but as to be expected with the nature of the account) of The Great Depression and how it impacted Main Street America. (show less)



5. I've always wondered why people who emerged from the Great Depression are so different than my generation (boomer). They are more nervous, cautious, a bit fearful, but way more sensible than the carefree, debt-ridden generations that were born after the depression ended. When someone says, "my folks lived through the depression" you know what they're like. Forever changed, savers, and never crazy with investments.
   So the chance to read a nunc-pro-tunc account of what daily life was like to a person living in the Great Depression, it's a fantastic historical opportunity to enter a time capsule with such granularity and texture that you feel like you are there.
   But what's haunting is the similarities of life then to life today. Phantom ups and downs so the unaware public is being convinced that the worst is over, when in fact, history showed that it was only going to get worse. The government bailouts, and the fear of inflation. In many ways reading this book is like reading today's papers.
   Scary and enlightening - it's a great piece of american history.

5 comments about Mindhunter: Inside the FBI's Elite Serial Crime Unit.

1. This is one of my favorite authors of true crime. He has a certain flair for combining total facts with creative writing to make the true stories interesing, factual but not boring at all.
   
   It's amazing how the profiling works out, but as proven in this book, it does. You won't want to put this book down.



2. As a senior at the University of Maryland double majoring in Criminal Justice and Psychology I picked up this book because of professional interests. The beginning is told like most prideful autobiographies that have the intention of communicating the God-like nature of the author (think Dick Marcinco - The Rogue Warrior, Frank W. Abagnale Jr. - Catch Me If You Can etc.)The descriptions of John Douglas' younger years were kind of tedious and uninteresting(the first 65 pages or so,) as the reason I picked up the book was to get a better overall understanding of investigative profiling.
   
   Most of the book is fairly well written, and interesting to read. Douglas points out that he has been the lead profiler in many of the serial crimes cases that Americans seem towet their pants over. (The Unabomber, The Atlanta-Child Murderer, The Green River Killer) He also describes the process by which he interviewed many serial killers after they were caught. Most of the book is dedicated to showing the accuracy of criminal profiles when done by someone who knows what they're talking about. Douglas proves this point over and over again, making ney-sayers look stupid over and over again.
   
   I enjoyed the book, but I had several issues with its content.
   
   1. When Douglas relates his first person encounters with criminal interviewing he often goes into an extremely poor writing style exchanging the first person for the second, and exchanging the past tense for the present. He also is fond of using the term "like" a lot just like a valley girl. An example of this would be "Then we were all like this guy is crazy. . ." instead of "I knew what the other team members were thinking, we all thought he was crazy. . ." Because of this, I often found myself rephrasing this poor form of writing while I was reading it in order to get a better understanding.
   
   2. It has some fallacious information do to the publication date. I think newer editions should come with extra content do to the development of what has recently happened in several cases mentioned in the end of the book. Mainly that the Green-River killer turned out to be - one person(not three) - Garry Ridgway; And that BTK was caught and shown to be Dennis Rader. Douglas also gives a bit of spurious information at the end about how Jack the Ripper was the first media sensationalized serial killer - that was actually Gilles De Rais. He probably just didn't consider the French media of the 1400's to be sensationalized enough.
   
   Besides those two points Dr. Douglas did a fine job telling of his experiences and definitely got me interested in the field of investigative criminal profiling. If your looking for a more collegiate version of this book without the personal annals check out Robert K. Resslers (John Douglas' partner) Profilers: Leading Investigators Take You Inside The Criminal Mind



3. This book offered a unique opportunity to see a number of personally important and particularly illustrative cases through John Douglas's eyes. Unfortunately, it seems difficult for Douglas to leave behind his bias and write for the reader rather than himself. There are some sections of the book that drag on far longer than they need to and while I appreciate their importance to him as a reader I'm simply not as invested as he is.
   
   He's also very clear and up front about his own philosophy of crime, its causes, and its related ethics. I often found myself disagreeing with him but he presents this material in way that's well reasoned, well argued, and only approaches abrasive without actually crossing the line. I appreciated his restraint and as a result can respect his opinions even if I don't agree with them.
   
   Overall I think this was one of the more informative books to come out of the Investigative Support Unit, though it wasn't one of the more cohesive and poetic works.
   
   Kindle edition: This book isn't in Topaz format but there's a strange glitch that makes the text appear one size larger than the actual setting. It's well formatted otherwise but do be aware that you'll likely need to bump the text size down a notch.



4. This book is excellent. Being a criminal justice major and self-proclaimed buff, I can say that reading this has given me insight and further interested me in behavioral analysis. Douglas has a way of keeping the reader interested without using big, hard to understand words. He grabs you from the beginning with his own personal history and humble start into the field. He is genius and I thoroughly enjoyed this read....couldn't put it down!



5. John Douglas has the capability of captivating the reader through his real life story telling. This book draws you into the mind of a profiler as he seeks to find the truth. Gripping details, unbelievable acts of terror, and horrifying facts will have you looking over your shoulder for days. You must read this if you are a true crime buff. The legendary profiler is also a legendary author.

5 comments about Everything Will Be All Right.

1. Doug Wallace has carved a moving, page-turner with precision and grace out of one of the most chaotic, heartbreaking childhoods ever to be set down on the page. This deeply affecting memoir is truly a great American classic. Like a good bottle of wine, the lessons learned from the author's story will become more valuable with time. It covers one of the greatest eras in American history from the perspective of a young boy growing up in horrible poverty in the 50's and 60's. It is triumph against all odds in every possible way, and it does what all the great classics do: it affirms our faith in the human spirit, in God, and in Love. WOW is all I can really say about this book. Everything Will Be All Right is now our family mantra. Thank you, Doug Wallace, for sharing your inspiring story.



2. This book held my attention and my emotions from front to back. It really makes you appreciate the little things that you are blessed with in your own life, including basic needs, such as food, water and shelter. These are things that most of us take for granted. This book should be mandatory reading for our young teenagers today. It would be a good down to earth lesson for each & every child. After reading this book, I passed it on to family members, and you will do the same. It's that compelling, that inspiring, and that moving, and you never doubt for a second that the author is writing with a genuine voice.



3. This book is wonderful. There is only one other book besides "Everything Will Be All Right," that I was able to read cover to cover NONSTOP and that was Frank McCourt's "Angela's Ashes." And, that was years ago. The author doesn't wallow in self-pity and his story is written with a genuine voice. This story will move you, inspire you, and IT WILL stick with you well after you have finished it. The author writes his story so well. It's definitely a page turner and an inside look at a world most of us will never know.



4. It is hard to believe that anyone can truly have experienced a life like that of Doug Wallace. It is mind-blowing to those of us who grew up thinking we were deprived. To be able to pull through that situation and still be able to lead a successful life means that there is something truly exceptional about this author. During these difficult times, it is inspiring to know that times have been much harder in the past. If I learned anything from this book, it is that I will never give up, no matter how hard things become.
   I would recommend this book to everyone, especially those who believes that they are in a tough situation right now. Either you will realize that you are currently well off, or you will be able to feel what Doug Wallace felt during his childhood--that everything will be all right, if only you believe in yourself.



5. It seems almost impossible that a person with a childhood as Doug Wallace's could have the guts to set his sights on, and achieve, such lofty goals. I'm truly impressed and ashamed for complaining about things that are not even comparable to what he had to live through. From the beginning to the end, the story captivates the reader. I was able to see, from the outside-in, through the prism of poverty, the hardships of growing up poor. But rather than seeking pity, the writer enabled me to see things from the perspective of the positive side of the human spirit, never letting go of hope and always believing everything will be all right. I personally passed this book to my sister the moment I finished reading it. It's a fantastic quick read and I agree with other reviewers, the story will stick with you.

5 comments about Circle of Greed: The Spectacular Rise and Fall of the Lawyer Who Brought Corporate America to Its Knees.

1. Lawyers will love this book. Non-lawyers will too. That's a recipe for an excellently reported and written narrative about a man who got caught up in a legal system that he'd worked to his advantage. Mr. Dillon and Mr. Cannon cited their extensive research, proving this is not some book they just threw together. If you're interested in fantastic writing, pick this one up.



2. I found the book compelling and timely - given today's social, political and economic climates. Cannon and Dillon have created an amazing and very readable account of the inner workings of class-action suits within the legal system, the formation of questionable political, legal, and corporate liaisons, the lack-luster SEC, investigative work, and cheating. The unfolding revelations within the text are both troubling and fascinating at the same time. The authors clearly reveal there is not much of a delineation between narcissistic, brilliant people and stupidity. Lerach is a conumdrum; and his world of law is clearly full of moral and ethical contradictions. Kuddos to the authors for providing such a wonderfully detailed account of Lerach's world and giving greater insight into the socio-political inadequacies that have become a part of this nation's conscience.
   KW



3. If you enjoy well-written non-fiction about interesting characters and their foibles in the business/legal world, certainly add 'Circle of Greed' to your reading list. Bill Lerach's personality, actions and place in history are certainly worthy of a serious book like this one. The authors Cannon and Dillon maintain a compelling narrative flow while relating an enormous volume of impeccably-researched information- some of it arcane- which is no small feat.
   
   If, however, you are looking for an excellent business-legal world character study/history book/thriller that is simultaneously a textbook on securities law and class action lawsuits, a precise survey of commute times in the Cleveland metropolitan area and completely devoid of any conventional narrative language, this may not be the book for you.



4. Circle of Greed provides a fascinating account of the rise and fall one of the most famous--or infamous--class action lawyers, Bill Lerach. The book has many fine qualities. First, it is very interesting reading. Lerach has lived a colorful life, and Dillon and Cannon tell a heck of a story.
   
   Second, because Lerach was so prominent in prosecuting class actions, the book provides a concise history of many of the most important cases of fraud in the financial industry over the last several decades, a history that could not be more timely. Dillon and Cannon do a wonderful job of explaining in clear and accessible terms some of the shenanigans in which corporate America has engaged. Those descriptions by themselves justify the price of the book.
   
   Third, Circle of Greed offers a balanced account of class actions and their virtues and vices as a means of achieving justice. Lerach himself appears as a complicated character: a true believer who was so committed to his cause--and to winning--that he was willing to bend and even break the rules, leading to his incarceration.
   
   As a law professor, I teach about and study class actions and complex litigation. Over the years I have learned that people's ideological commitments tend to shape their views of class action litigation rather than the other way around. As a result, Circle of Greed is likely to be a Rorschach test. Those who hate class actions may object that Dillon and Cannon fail to condemn Lerach in clear enough terms. Those who are enamored with class actions may think Dillon and Cannon were too tough on Lerach--or should have chosen a more sympathetic subject, a class action lawyer who acted more ethically. But those who read Circle of Greed with an open mind may learn a little bit about one man's story, as well as a bit about the strengths and weaknesses of class litigation. Dillon and Cannon just provide the facts. The reader has to decide what to do with them.



5. You've heard of the blind leading the blind? How about the amoral prosecuting the amoral?
   Dillon and Cannon paint an interesting picture of a complicated anti-hero. It seems perfectly tuned to the climate of anger and blame in today's politics. The crusading lawyer for the little guy turns out to not really be such a crusader and more a self-serving opportunist. Good for those who like shades of gray.

5 comments about The Autobiography of an Execution.

1. Well it is difficult to rate if, so far, I have not received the book. Amazon did not explain how to send money to a private seller. The seller sent the book to my U.S. address but for some reason it was returned to the seller with the note, undeliverable. This is not Amazon's problem. However, about 10 days after I did not receive the book when it was expected and started to follow-up with Amazon I learned of the issue. When I tried to contact the seller indicating my book was returned (I don't know if the seller would have notified me or simply forgot and kept my money)I was told that I needed to send 3.99 via Paypal and a new shipping address if I wanted to receive the book. Ok, having never used Paypal I set up an account and sent the money to the only email address identified in Amazon. This time I followed up with the seller through the "Contact Seller" link in the Amazon site indicating I had sent the money. The seller never received the money. Later, after emailing image clips of the verification that money was sent, the seller said the Amazon address for her was temporary and she couldn't receive the money from this email address. Apparentliy Amazon (fairly) strips all references to private email addresses with the exception of what I now learned is a temporary Amazon email address for the seller. The seller didn't know Amazon stripped her private email address. So, apparently, I need to go to the Paypall site, cancell the payment and resend to the sellers personal email address which after 6 emails was sent to me by the seller. I still don't have the book!!!! I don't have my money!!!! My first experience buying from a private seller through Amazon has not been good. I live in an area outside of the U.S. where books are not easy to get and when I have the opportunity to get new books I get a little excited. It is too bad this excitement has evolved into dissapointment. David



2. "I tell young lawyers who want to be death-penalty lawyers that if it's going to be disabling to watch your clients die, you need to find something else to do. Your clients are going to die."
   
   David R. Dow is a distinguished professor at the University of Houston Law Center and the litigation director at the Texas Defender Service. An author, a husband, a father and a dog lover, Dow has watched men get executed and then gone home to hold hands with his wife and gaze lovingly at his little boy. He has wondered if his son's two-year-old night terrors were his fault, caused by what he brings into the house. In a recent interview with NPR, he talked about how when he leaves his work on death row, he comes home and ritually launders all the clothes he was wearing --- every time.
   
   "I am always hopeful. Nothing ever works out, but I always think that it's going to. How else could you keep doing this work?" Because he believes all killing is wrong, Dow defends the undefended and the indefensible. He knows that the majority of men on his caseload are guilty of heinous crimes. But not all.
   
   THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF AN EXECUTION tells the long story of Dow's work with a man he calls "Quaker" (naturally, the name he chose is symbolic). Quaker was convicted of murdering his estranged wife and two little children, but the murder weapon was never found. There were life insurance policies on the three victims --- that fact stood out in his conviction, along with the well-known wisdom that spouses are always suspects. Quaker had witnessed the deaths of two friends in a fire that consumed part of the chemical plant where he worked; afterwords he became withdrawn, apparently traumatized. He confesses to Dow that he couldn't give his wife, whom he characterized as the love of his life, the "intimacy" she needed. They separated, she and his kids wound up dead, and Quaker found himself on death row in a cell barely big enough to walk in, waiting for his execution date. Setting that date is part of Dow's job. It's all about the ticking clock, the countdown.
   
   Dow intersperses Quaker's story with many others --- other men guilty and perhaps not, a few who cheated the executioner, like the one who was clearly mentally incompetent and whose sentence was converted to life. Dow believes that any method of cheating is okay (like dying before the sentence can be carried out) because he believes that all executions are a miscarriage of justice. He is not, he declares, a religious man. His beliefs are his own. He once threatened a preacher who had wormed his way onto death row and was convincing prisoners to stop pleading for their lives in favor of looking forward to heavenly glory. Yet he admired the preacher for having gotten so close to these hardened souls. Men on death row have lost trust.
   
   Dow lets us in on a harsh world of criminal snitches, lying cops, sleeping lawyers, stupidity, cruelty and legal loopholes, where it's hard to tell the good guys from the bad ones, where racism is a stark fact and death is the known, the norm. He lets us laugh a little and shows us his own contrasting existence as a loving but sometimes absent dad and a caring but often distracted husband. Even his dog sometimes fails to get his attention. But we know that his absence and distraction have a purpose. And his clients are aware of it too. On the night of his execution, a man named Johnny said to him, "You did everything. You were the only one. Now go right home when you leave this hell and hug your son, okay?" So Dow went home and hugged his sleeping son.
   
   Quaker came to trust Dow. And Dow did everything possible within the legal system as it exists to help him, in the process becoming convinced of Quaker's innocence. But that is not necessary for Dow. He will do everything he can for everyone he works for. That is the essential message of this remarkable book.



3. David Dow's strangely titled book is a journal of his legal defense work in death penalty cases, and a memoir of his personal life with his wife and son (he was late to marry). Unfortunately, it never quite decides what it wants to be, so it offers a not-so-fascinating look at both aspects of his life. There seem to be two characters vying for attention here: David Dow the brass-knuckled street-fighting attorney and David Dow the gentle family man. The one thing that is obvious is that Dow has an immense ego, something he quotes his wife as remarking upon.
   
   Then there's the writing style. Dow admits that he is not an accomplished writer; //Execution// is practically devoid of style. The quirky narrative bounces from tense legal cases to family matters without any apparent structure. On the plus side, this stream-of-consciousness approach does not require a lot of attention from the reader, because Dow does not stick to any one topic for very long.
   
   This is an airplane-ride book, offering a far less substantive treatment of the death-penalty debate than a prospective purchaser might expect.
   
   Reviewed by Joseph Arellano



4. I can't imagine that lots of people would read and review this book who didn't have at least a sense of social injustice or reluctance. This is an excellent account of a legal professional who has worked in this system, trying to bring some hope to those on death row. It is easy to read, relatively short. It WILL leave a lasting impression on the reader, at least, it has done so with me. I give this a thumb's up and endorse it!



5. Dow is a part time death row appeal lawyer who also teaches law. A big chunk of the book introduces us to what appears to be a stream of thought he feels as he goes around trying to keep murderers from being executed.
   
   It could be a result of his writing, but the guy isn't very likeable. Kid wants to go to a halloween party, and dad/author promised to take him? Sitting around waiting for an execution is more important, not even a call for the kid. Ditto for wife's stuff. Dow is so liberal he thinks it makes him a good guy to give bums money to hang around under bridges. A lawyer leaves at the end of the workday instead of spinning his wheels all night like Dow? Fire him for not making the gesture to show everyone he cares too much.
   
   The writing itself is so out there, it is like listening to guy smoking pot and drinking red bull for the first time in college. Just painful to read after a while. So jumpy and spacey at the same time.
   
   The author also keeps claiming he used to be in favor of death, but he does not list a single real reason why. That may be fair, though, since the reasons he lists for being against it are nothing more than you would hear from a college freshman trying to repeat something their prof said in class. Just nothing there.
   
   Dow is very judgemental of death case trial defense lawyers. Not everyone can be the best, but I think he may be grossly overstating how bad many of them are. There is also an attempt to claim that a female judge on one of his cases tried to get him in the sack. That storyline had my BS sensor triggered some.
   
   One place Dow is most focused, and the reason to read the book, is his descriptions of the clients/murderers. These are weird, bad, evil, stupid, mind game playing people. The author does show us that. He tells us that, too, a little. But mostly he shows it.

5 comments about Unbillable Hours: A True Story.

1. I read this in one sitting and loved it! It's a real page-turner and, incredibly, it's a true story. Anyone considering a career at a private law firm should read this first! Highly recommended.



2. I thoroughly enjoyed this book, but it dismayed me at the state of our legal system, particularly in Los Angeles. I am very curious if this prompted the implementation of any reforms in the prosecutorial function there. LA has such a long history of corruption in their police departments combined with this overly aggressive attitude toward prosecution and unwillingness to admit mistakes is very disheartening. And I don't want to spoil the ending, but the book does have a predictably happy ending. But how do you give someone back several years of their life spent unfairly in jail?



3. An extremely well written account of the life of an associate at a big firm. Ian tells it like it is and knocks it out of the park. This is a true life account of what John Grisham writes as fiction, only better. A must read. This book should be required reading for all lawyers contemplating life at a big firm.



4. Great book for every law school student to read. It is a fast, easy read and very enlightening.



5. Ian Graham's debut, Unbillable Hours, is a riveting tale of two young men from different worlds whose lives intersect under the most improbable circumstances. Graham, a college baseball player from a stable and successful family, begins his legal career at the large and powerful Los Angeles law firm of Latham & Watkins earning a six-figure salary and looking forward to working his way into a friendly and inspiring firm culture. He soon discovers that the firm is a sweatshop with well-dressed workers and surly, egocentric managers. Graham pulls back the curtain on life in a big firm, describing all-night briefing sessions and weeks spent carefully cataloging warehouses of documents as billion-dollar companies battle it out over millions of dollars with highly-paid new lawyers as the pawns.
   
   Mario Rocha's life stands in sharp contrast to Graham's life of wealth and privilege. Raised in East LA by his immigrant single mother, Rocha is smart and artistic, but must avoid the pull of crime and gangs that ensnares so many of his family and friends. Attending a party one night, Rocha watches as gang members square off in a fight that escalates to gunfire and ultimately the shooting death of a young man. Although he is not in a gang, has never owned a gun, and did not participate in the fight, he is accused of murder along with two known gang members. Sloppy legal work by Rocha's defense attorney and overzealous prosecution by a district attorney lead to a conviction, and Rocha begins a life sentence in a high-security state prison.
   
   Engrossed in his work at Latham, Graham is tabbed to assist on Rocha's case, which the firm has taken on at no charge. His dissatisfaction with the big-firm culture grows steadily, and he thinks often of joining several fellow associates on their way out of the firm. Only Rocha's case keeps him there. The shocking injustice that must be undone gives Graham purpose in his work, and helps him get through a steady stream of disappointments as their effort to overturn Rocha's conviction winds slowly though a labyrinth of appeals. Rocha remains positive and upbeat throughout his ordeal, refusing to become bitter about the unfairness of a young life sidetracked. In all likelihood, Graham worked on the case with the feeling that he would use his talents and his position to help someone less fortunate than he; the irony is that Rocha taught Graham more about finding meaning in his career and his life than either man realized.
   
   So much of today's non-fiction is dry and uninteresting--something that simply cannot be said about Unbillable Hours. It actually reads more like a novel, with subtle exploration of character traits of the main players in the story and "can't put it down" pacing. For lawyers, law students, and anyone else interested in a compelling story artfully told, Ian Graham's first book should be on the top of the list.