Capitol Hill Blue Forums Misc. Topics Book, Movie & Podcast Reviews my own book page

I feel like I've been reading Jane Mayer's The Dark Side for at least a month—maybe two—but I'm happy to report that two nights ago at 11:45 I did finish it. It is what appears to be a well-researched, meticulously told report on what happened after 9/11 when President Bush and his cabal made the stab at creating an imperial presidency. There are many, many dog-eared pages, so apparently I was learning things dog-ear-worthy even while I was hating reading the book. Here's the stuff.

1) An eyewitness describes what happened in the Presidential Emergency Operations Center under the White House where Chaney and several advisors gathered after the planes crashed on 9/11. An eyewitness notes, "… there were no law books. Addington's worn, pocket-sized copy of the U.S. Constitution served as the only legal text on hand during the crisis." (page 49) No mention is made as to whether anyone read it or not. Personally, I'm willing to bet no one did.

2) The people leading our government at that time were not nice, or even compassionate. The practice of sending detainees to other countries where torture is performed is discussed frequently in The Dark Side. During Gonzales' confirmation hearings, he "chuckled and noted the administration 'can't fully control' what other nations do." (page 110) Chuckled? At least there's no record of him maniacally rubbing his hands together. All in all, a small blessing.

3) And exactly how did the Bush administration justify torture. First they decided terrorists were fighters from a "failed state." And that led to: "(Douglas) Feith … packaged his argument with Orwellian cleverness as a defense of the Geneva Convention, arguing in a memo, which Rumsfield shared with President Bush, that it would defile the Geneva Convention to extend their rights to such disreputable warriors. (page 122) Wow! I find that logic truly impressive.

4) At one point an unidentified officer is quoted as saying, "In the Bush administration, loyalty is new competence." (page 180) And, silly us, here we were still thinking competence meant … well …competence. Bad citizens! No dessert for you.

5) On the TV show 24: "But on Guantanamo, as everywhere else in America, its macho hero, Jack Bauer, who tortured his enemies until they talked, was followed with admiration. On 24, torture always worked. It saved America on a weekly basis. (page 196) Oh, good. Ethics and behavior derived from a television show. On Fox even. Be still my heart.

6) An FBI agent reported, "On a couple of occasions I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position on the floor, with no chair, food or water. Most times they had urinated or defecated on themselves." (page 203) I unwillingly accept that Bush and his cronies will never be tried for war crimes, but looking at those two sentences, I truly hope there's a hell and whatever god there is wants more from a man than having "been saved."

7) There were good guys, the most notable IMHO Tom Wilner, a DC lawyer whose family and firm never accepted his decision to defend a number of Guantanamo detainees. (pages 204-207) (I see wonderful material for a play here. I just wish I had enough legal knowledge to write it.)

8) At the end of a paragraph on how our systematic torture lessened our standing in the eyes of the world, Jane Mayer says, "Canada went so far as to place America on its official list of rogue countries that torture." (page 332) Sarcasm alert: Dear President-but-not-for-long Bush, words fail me in expressing my pleasure at how and where you have led this country.

All in all, I'm glad I read The Dark Side. But still, IMHO, nonfiction = homework. Always has, probably always will.

Warning: This review's gonna be a long one. I started reading The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay in early December of 2007. First I read five essays at a time, then they got longer and I dropped to three at a time. Finally, the last several were so long that I wound up reading one a day. The Federalist Papers was (were?) not always fun reading. But I did dog-ear lots and lots of pages.

It's now November 2008, and I'm finally getting around to writing this review, although I feel compelled to admit that I'm not doing so because of any need to get the review written. I'm doing so because the subject ties in with a one-act play I'm working on. Now for those dog-eared pages.

1) In No. 4 John Jay discusses why a federal government will better protect the people than individual states could. He lays out reasons to go to war AND reasons not to. In the not-to section he writes, "… absolute monarchs will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it, but for purposes and objects purely personal, such as … revenge for personal affronts … support their particular families or partisans." (page 40) Words drift through my mind. Haliburton. Or a paraphrase: after all, he's the man who tried to kill my daddy. I guess if one is going to consider the Constitution a "damned piece of paper, The Federalist Papers don't stand a chance in hell.

2) One reason I read The Federalist Papers was Senator Hatrack's frequent cry that those of a liberal bent didn't understand why the federal government came into being, so I kept a running list. Protection, mentioned above, was one reason. No. 11 by Hamilton presents reasons why uniting the states will work better for trade. So protection, then trade.

3) In No. 12 Hamilton adds taxes earned on imports will be larger and benefit the whole country more than taxing imports state by state. I find myself amazed at the business and practical angles that appeared as the noble "experiment" of democracy began.

4) All right, I concede some ground to Senator Hatrack. Madison, in No. 14, does try to sell the idea of federalism by claiming that the federal government will limit itself to only a few particular legislative areas and everything else will be left to the states. Sad to say, the only argument I can make for things being different now is a rather weak analogy. Anyone know of any 200+-year-old marriages where all the vows, promises and plans of things to do haven't changed from what was said in the proposal or wedding ceremony? OK, it's weak—but certainly realistic.

5) In No.23 Hamilton gives what, at least IMHO, is a pretty good statement expressing the goals of the federal government as they were then seen. "The principle purposes to be answered by our union are these—the common defense of the members; the preservation of the public peace, as well against internal convolutions as well as external attacks; the regulation of commerce with other nations, and between the States; the superintendence of our intercourse, political and commercial, with foreign countries." (page 149) Again, looking at those words, I can understand how historical "purists" might support such a limited range of power, but I have to wonder: If such a merger were to be drawn up today, wouldn't the duties be much expanded?

6) Hamilton in No. 26: " … the state legislatures … will be not only vigilant but suspicious and jealous guardians of the rights of the citizens against encroachments from the federal government …" (page 168) Hummm. States' rights. I find it interesting that during the semi-politically-aware part of my life the "states' rights" cry has only been used as a code word for "keep the African-Americans in their place." Is it a part of other issues? Of course I'm all for the federal government taking part in civil rights, but then I'm a 20th/21st century citizen. And I'm finding a lot of times when states are reassured that their rights, except those listed above, will remain with the states: Hamilton again in No 32, Hamilton in No. 34, Madison in No. 41, Madison in No. 43, and Madison in No. 45 (specific example: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and definite. Those which are to remain with the State governments are many and indefinite." (page 289).

7) In No. 34 Hamilton also mentions that the federal government rather than the states will be responsible for debt incurred by war. Interesting. If the states had not signed on, today would only the red states be fighting in any paying for the Iraq War? Or maybe just New York, DC and Pennsylvania?

8) "… we may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on a government that derives all its powers either directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure for a limited period of time, or during good behavior. (page 237) (emphasis mine) In some ways, we certainly have drifted. Can we all say "Senator Stevens from Alaska"?

9) I found it interesting that the dangers of and problems inherent in slavery thread themselves through The Federalist Papers. In No. 42 Madison writes, "It ought to be considered as a great point gained in favor of humanity that a period of twenty years may terminate forever, within these United States, a traffic which has so long and so loudly upbraided the barbarism of modern policy; that within that period it will receive a considerable discouragement from the federal government, and may be totally abolished, by a concurrence of the few States which continue the unnatural traffic in the prohibitory example which has been given by so great a majority of the Union. (pages 262-263) I wanted to send a warning: Look out, guys. It's not gonna be that easy.

10) Commerce justifies the construction of roads and laws of bankruptcy falling under the federal government in No. 42. So, we've all heard government of the people, by the people and for the people. Even from the very beginning should the phrase have been of the people, by the people and for business?

11) In No. 51, Madison writes, "In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the government; and in the next place control itself." (page 319) The first seems to have been achieved, at least most of the time. The second? Still-having-trouble-there is an understatement.

12) Madison, again, in No. 54: "Government is instituted no less for the protection of property than of the persons of individuals." (page 336) My, haven't we done well in remembering that! Kelo v New London anyone?

13) Interesting. Hamilton adds that if it did happen, the treaty would be nullified. From a twenty-first century perspective: I dunno. Guess the founding fathers hadn't seen in human behavior
what we've seen today.

14) In No. 68 Hamilton talks about the election of a president through the electoral college and how the process will result in a man much more qualified than, say, a governor of a single state. "Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of the President of the United States." (page 412) So, founding fathers, has that worked out as you expected?

15) Supreme Court talk by Hamilton in No.74: "… the judges … by being often associated with the executive, … might be induced to embark too far in the political views of that magistrate, and thus a dangerous combination might by degrees be cemented between the executive and judicial departments. … It is peculiarly dangerous to place them in a situation to be either corrupted by the executive." (page 445) Say, Mr. Hamilton, I think you guys could have worked a little harder on this one. Or: Houston, I think we have a problem.

16) And on the President as he decides on who is to be nominated as a judge in No. 76, also by Hamilton: "He would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merits than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, …" (page 456) Any minute now I'll stop laughing long enough to ask, "Can anyone say Harriet Miers?"

17) No. 78, again Hamilton: "According to the plan of the convention, all judges who may be appointed by the United States are to hold their offices during good behavior … (page 463) (emphasis his) I'm not sure judges who receive gifts and go on hunting trips with members of the executive branch qualify. But these days such behavior sure doesn't appear to have an effect.

18) Also No.78: "No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above the master; that the representatives of a people are superior to the people themselves …" (page 466) Every elected official and every appointed judges needs to be required to read No. 78 and take a test covering its contents.

Two final comments:

1) As I've probably stated before, I love looking at specifics in how language is used and how such usage reflects society. All through The Federalist Papers the phrase "the United States" uses the plural form of a verb—the United States have, for example. Now it doesn't. "The United States has" is proper. Guess the States have, indeed, become United. When do you think the change occurred?

2) I now feel compelled to thank Doug Thompson for starting this site and all you really smart and well-read people who hang out here—whether I agree with your opinions or not. If anyone had ever told me that in my sixties, I'd pick up and willingly read The Federalist Papers, I'd have laughed in his/her face. But I did, and I'm glad I did. So, thank you all.

Moving through the Dave Robicheaux series by James Lee Burke, I've just finished A Stained White Radiance. The story centers about the children from an abusive family who have now grown up and are making names for themselves in the areas of politics, religion and crime, making enemies all the while. And that's where Dave Robincheaux comes in, does his job, and makes sure the baddest of the bad guys gets what's coming to him.

I'm starting to notice things about Burke's writing.

1) His love for New Orleans and the areas around it comes through loud and clear. I might quibble with the prostitution onset, but I won't deny the sadness and caaring that lie behind the words.

2) Sometimes he can write a simple sentence that, IMHO, actually says much more than the words themselves. "My palms were ringing with anger." (page 251) My palms have done that, but I didn't know the words to express it.

3) Dave attends a picnic where a local politician is to speak and describes the people there. Wow! Red state alert! Red state alert!

4) Remind you of anyone in politics today? And, out of curiosity, anyone know who the ex-president and his wife might be?

For crime series, I still like Ed McBain's 87th precinct books better, but James Lee Burke is growing on me.

The ability to do that is the mark of a great writer...one of my favorite 20th Century authors is James Dickey...and he definitely had that ability.

In "Deliverance" the protagonist describes the ramshackle "Griner Brothers Garage," where the quartet of weekend frontiersmen is trying to arrange a car shuttle for their ill-fated weekend canoeing adventure:

To me, that one phrase, "The air was full of hooks," perfectly described the scene...it's stuck with me for many years and I can't think of Dickey or Deliverance without that image immediately popping into my head.

DELIVERANCE has been on my you-oughta-read-that list for years. Is the book A) as good as the movie, B) better than the movie, or C) comparing books and movies is pointless?

"Dueling Banjos" has haunted me for years--even when done by Andy Taylor and the Darlings.

Martha, my personal opinion is that the movie was good...almost great...but the book is better. But like you say, they're two different things; both enjoyable in their own form. If you haven't read it, you are missing some mighty fine writing. It's a bit of a "guy book", with some pretty intense, violent, macho scenes, but if you've seen the movie, then there shouldn't be any big surprises.

What's the Matter With Kansas? by Thomas Frank is nonfiction and, therefore, homework. The premise, however, did interest me. The book asks: how can the Republicans manage to make so many Americans, represented here by the residents of Kansas, vote against their financial interest? Frank's answer is that the Republicans turn everyone's attention away from how their party helps the rich and to the nasty, un-American, immoral, big city elitists who control the media and try to force their "librul" views down the throats of true, hardworking Americans. Such was the argument he expressed many times and illustrated with many similar examples. I did dog-ear pages, but by the end of the book when everything Frank wrote seemed a restatement of views he had already written, I lost interest. Let's look at the dog-eared pages. Maybe a few will recapture the interest I first had in the book.

1) No specific quote, but I did find the history of the book's title interesting. "What's the Matter with Kansas?" was originally an article written by a William Allen White in 1898. At the time Kansas was known for radical views, and White put forth the argument that these reformers were ruining Kansas, sending it down the path to hell. Kansas radical? Frank pointed out the state's position on slavery and reminded me that John Brown did originally come from there. So, in historical lights, Kansas started out a loud defender of liberal views. Frank then notes several movements that still start in Kansas—Wichita being selected by Operation Rescue as the location for the first of the major abortion protests and Topeka being the home of the God-hates-fags preacher. The feeling I got from Frank is that Kansas is as strident as it has ever been; the difference is that now it supports the far right conservative movement.

2) Frank discusses the strict social classifications in Kansas, particularly represented by a Johnson County. I'm sure that like many Americans, I think of our country maybe not as classless but certainly as a place where people with money and manners can upgrade the class in which they started. Frank's description of Kansas reminded me of what a friend once told me about his two-years-plus residency in London where class advancement is simply not an option. I also get the feeling that Johnson County in Kansas is far more "southern" than Huntsville, Alabama, both in terms of society and politics.

3) Frank also points out the strong capitalistic views of Kansas. Yep, he had to remind me that both Wal-Mart and Hallmark started and have their headquarters in Kansas.

4) Frank summarizes a discussion of the ills that have befallen Kansas with the following:

Wow! And there you have the whole picture. Dang! Those Republicans are gooooood! .

I'll stop here. What's the Matter with Kansas? is very much another little-girl-with-a-curl book. When it's good, it's good. When it's not, it's horrid. And dull. And tedious. And let's not forget repetitious.

But for the good parts, I'm glad I read it.

Jhumpa Lahiri won a Pulitzer Prize in 200 for Interpreter of Maladies, a collection of short stories. Previously I read her novel, The Namesake, and liked it enough to move on (or back by actual date) to Interpreter, which I also liked. Thinking about both of them though, I have to favor the novel. Lahiri is a subtle writer, and, IMHO, the novel wins because in each short story by the time I really got into the characters and the story, it ended.

Given: In collections of short stories, some are always better than others. Also given: Lahiri's writing often sings. Thus I find it odd that the only page I dog-eared was the last one in the book. The story, "The Third and Final Continent," is about a man from India who studies in England, then comes to work in Boston. The year of his arrival is 1969, and the United States has just put men on the moon. The sentences that made me misty:
I'm reminded of the final scene in Auntie Mame when Mame borrows her grandson for the summer and says, "Oh, the things we'll see, the adventures we'll have." (I'm sure that's only a paraphrase.) The end of Lahiri's final short story and the end of Auntie Mame make me ask: Is any of it ordinary?

Give Jhumpa Lahiri a try. I think you'll like her.

James Lee Burke's Dixie City Jam is the best Detective Dave Robicheaux novel I've read yet. White supremacist groups, leftover Nazis, drugs ruining the ghettos, questionable police officers, sunken U-boats filled with possibilities, a truly sadistic bad guy who enjoys taunting his victims. What else could a reader want?

I still think Burke writes a bit too long and has way too many characters, but he is growing on me.

Specific moments that spoke to me:

1) I like action that's part of dialogue rather than being directly stated. Detective Robischeaux is talking on the phone to a New Orleans contact and asks him who the supervising officer on a case is. The contact replies, "A guy named Baxter. Yeah, Nate Baxter. He used to be in Vice in the First District. You remember a plainclothes by that name? . . . Hey, Dave, you there?" (page 11) Not only can you "see" Dave's departure, but those few sentences tell worlds about Nate Baxter and the relationship he had with Dave.

2) Dave's wife has lupus, and he arrives at this mindset: "I had come to feel, as many people do when they live with a stricken wife or husband, that the tyranny of love can be as destructive as that of the disease." (page 67) Now, if I can summon up the nerve to show that sentence to my husband, I might make him understand, at least a little.

3) Nice foreshadowing, IMHO. "If I had only mentioned his name or the fact that he was with his wife, or that he was elderly, or that he was a southern mountain transplant. Any one of those things would have made all the difference." (page 72) And, yep, right after that the sadist shows his nature, and the first really interesting plot twist occurs.

4) On people trying to gain control: "They got to make people afraid. That's the plan. Make 'em afraid of the coloreds, the dope addicts, the homosexuals, hit don't matter. When they got enough people afraid, that's when they'll move." (page 325) Copyright date on the book is 1994. Wonder if Mr. Burke remembered writing those words while the Bush machine was going full throttle forward.

5) 1994? Wow!

6) Dave is watching TV. "A gelatinous fat man, with the toothy smile of a chipmunk, was denigrating liberals and making fun of feminists and the homeless. His round face was bright with an electric jeer when he broached the subjects of environmentalists and animal rights activists. His live audience squealed with delight." (page 399) Bet Burke loved the Michael J. Fox imitation, too.

Yep. I think I'll keep on reading him.

In a nutshell Nathan Englander's The Ministry of Special Cases is the story of a Jewish family living in revolutionary Argentina whose teenage son is "disappeared" by the police. The plot centers on the parents' attempts to get him back.

There were several things I enjoyed about The Ministry of Special Cases. A) Oscar, my cat, knocked over a glass of water on the book, making the pages crinkle. I love playing with crinkly pages. It's like popping bubble wrap and being able to read at the same time. B) The Ministry of Special Cases has many, many chapters and frequently the end of a chapter is only half a page long, maybe even less.. C) AND The Ministry of Special Cases is divided into three parts. That means thrice the reader comes upon the occasion when he faces a short page of text, a single page designating which part is about to start, and a blank page before the text again starts. Truly momentous events! D) At this point you may be surprised to learn that the author did sometimes express an interesting idea in a pleasing manner, but it did happen.

1) At the start of the revolution, a character notices uniformed and armed young men marching slowly through the streets. She notes, "Trouble does not break out anywhere in the world …. War is not unleashed. It is slowly, it is carefully, installed." (page 37) Unless, of course, it is installed by the United States to protect her interests. Then there's shock and awe.

2) A character asks, "Why do you suppose all those soldiers out there are also nineteen? It's because they're the only ones stupid enough to die for a cause. After that, a little older, and the high-mindedness will melt away like baby fat. It's only generals, …your military men and your outright morons, that go boldly after adolescents looking for a reason to die." (page 82) I was frequently amazed at how well this book "about" Argentina nailed the United States.

3) A nation in turmoil: "The troubles always start when they start for you." (page 255) "First they came for," etc., etc.

4) A character warns, "These are the things this country wants desperately not to know." (page 307) Sound familiar? If not, let me remind you of: How dare that soldier release pictures of what happened at Abu Ghraib! He should be thrown into the brig.

5) And perhaps the most fitting quote from this book comes near the end: A character says, "Nothing like a novel to knock a man out. I've been reading the same two pages of this one for a year." (page 315) If he ever does finish it, I have a recommendation.

So, A) why'd I finish it, and B) what happened to stopping at fifty pages if a book isn't interesting? A) I wanted to know if the parents found the kid. B) At fifty pages there were still glimmers of interest, which--damn it all--teasingly appeared throughout all three hundred plus pages.