Edward Asner Books

Following four superb high-paced capers, this is the book which marked the start of Hiaasen's slide from excellence. All the usual ingredients are there - mayhem, bizarre criminals, comedy, snappy dialogue and good south Florida scene setting, but it lacks the joyous energy of his previous works.

At times, Hiaasen seems to be connecting the dots, filling up the work with techniques he's used in the past rather than striving to be genuinely different, as if he's getting tired of his own genre. The unlikely coincidences begin to build, the characters are starkly split into Good Guys and Bad Guys, without the richness and nuances of his earlier work, and there is less moral ambiguity in the characters to absorb the reader. This is also the first of his novels where the diatribe about the destruction of Florida's environment is placed front and centre, and this violates a standard rule of good writing, that "the artist and the polemicist need to be separated if both are to thrive."

Strip Tease is still funny and a good read, but only because Hiaasen being a bit off-form is better than most novelists at their best.

Hiaasen manages to sprinkle this book liberally with witty one-liners, but not enough to overcome the contrived plot and the cardboard characters. The description and indictment of the U.S. sugar industry are interesting, but the action in the book relies on far too many coincidences, and the characters are all comic-book heroes, villians, and buffoons. Not awful, but disappointing.

Synopsis:***Spoiler warning*** Ex-FBI employee Erin Grant is an exotic dancer. She lost her job because her ex-husband is a felon. Their divorce costs Erin her daughter because the self-righteous judge believes her daughter is better off with Erin's stolen-wheelchair dealing, speed-popping father than with her dancer mother. The judge is one of Erin's most ardent fans.

The story starts when Erin is groped by an intoxicated bridegroom at his bachelor party and rescued by a champagne-bottle wielding congressman who beats the bridegroom nearly to death. Blackmail, murder and the carving of ones initials in other people's skulls follow as Erin tries to get custody of her daughter with the help of Shad, the giant, bald, don't-call-him-a-bouncer from the club and Detective Al Garcia who sometimes drives around with a human head in an igloo ice chest in the trunk of his car.

What I thought: Hiaasen writes some of the funniest and most bizarre stories on the market today. They're not necessarily murder mysteries, though they frequently involve murders. They are not exactly comic caper novels, though there are lots of elements that might be classified as both comic and caper-ish. The writing is excellent. The characters are engaging and believable, sympathetic and whacky. This is a book for anyone and everyone.

Strip Tease, Skin Tight and Stormy Weather make up my A-list of Hiaasen reads. Though every single Hiaasen novel I've read has been a delight, these three stand out. Skin Tight for the best villains (pock-faced thug Chemo and journalist 'Flemm") and the best hero (Mike Stranahan is at his ironic unflappable best here, topping even his Skinny Dip appearance). Stormy Weather's got the best "bad girl" (Edie). Strip Tease stands out in some novel ways however.
The main one is Hiaasen's choice of a woman as main character, in what I (in contrast to some) thought was a very convincing 3-D way (better even than Skinny Dip's Joey, and Honey in Nature Girl) This book's heroine is Erin, an ex-FBI worker turned stripper, and also the unofficial "leader" of the 'harem' of dancers employed at the 'Eager Beaver'. Some reviewers express dismay at what they saw as the novel's 'stereotyped' portrayal of 'exploited' women in the sex business. But in fact, Hiaasen's heroines emerge as anything but female doormats. Erin and her friends may start out somewhat downtrodden (in spite of their gutsiness), but emerge victorious in the end over a veritable army of male sleazeballs: perverts, politicians, unscrupulous lawyers, and murderers (with many overlaps among these!) So this is a "David vs. Goliath" story with a modern Florida twist, and with classic Hiaasen satirical flair. Other gems were the villainous wheelchair thief (Erin's ex hubby Darryl), and his adventures while strung out on painkillers, and his trailer-dwelling sister and her wolf-dogs (Hiaasen sets these beasts most satisfyingly on one villain). Finally, this story's climax (pun-intended) is another example of plot-wizard Hiaasen at his best!

This amusing book about political slime, sex, lies and big industry scum starts with a bachelor party at a strip club. A perverted congressional representative (incognito of course) is also enjoying the dancers that same evening. The bachelor and the politician end up sharing the spotlight for a spell that evening and that clash drives the wild events that adequately move this story along. One of the dancers at the strip club, along with her ex-husband and their daughter, a bouncer, the bachelor and his fiancé, a lawyer, a cop, the congressman and his entourage, and a patron of the club, among others get caught up in this distorted, yet comical tale.

Although I enjoyed this book enough, and can appreciate its humor for sure, I can also guess that men support it most of all. As Carl Hiaasen says through his stripper character, Erin, "men are easily dazzled!" It's like a manly romantic comedy. Really, all it takes are a few choice words (use your imagination) used repeatedly throughout the book and this author - I'm sure - has the undivided and loyal attention of at least ½ the population of adult readers. That irony in itself is funny!

After reading this book, I can definitely say that Denby has caused me to want to start reading everthing from Homer to Freud. However, I will start with Freud (and go backwards), since reading Freud is the first step to diagnosing Denby, insofar as there must be a deep-seated reason for his dim view of boys and men.

For example early in the book, he states that the young women in his class are making intelligent and perceptive statements concerning the work at hand, while the boys are "as yet uncreated". What the heck does that mean? Your guess is as good as mine. I don't know..maybe the boys are putting off their own creation until after they are outside a five-hundred mile radius of Denby..probably a good idea, since the last thing we need is more misandry in our ideological (er..excuse me - educational) institutions.

Concerning the work overall, I'd say it's a very good account of one man's intellectual elevation through reading (actually re-reading) the great books of the western authors. And it is my opinion, that this canon has something to offer to all ethnicities and races, which also seems to be Denby's final impression.

Unfortunately, Denby's elevation to the status of someone having a positive outlook on the male gender, is as yet uncreated. Which keeps me from creating a higher rating for this book.

As am admitted couch potato middle-brow history buff, I threw this book into the shopping bag at the garage sale and never opened it. Until recently. I had been listening to the tapes from the Teaching Company on ancient Greek literature (go figure) as I drove around town. At the end of the tapes I sought out this David Denby book knowing little more about him than he was the movie reviewer for the New Yorker Magazine.

Wow. This books explains why the (selected) classics are classics and where they fit into the canon of western civilization. I really admired that he 're-took' the college classes 25 years later with the Columbia freshmen. The insight, relevance, and yes, struggles of the writer, the students, and even the professors as they come to terms with Homer, Virgil, and the Greek plays were eye openers for someone like me who knows these works are important, enjoys reading them, but never quite understood the depth of meaning assigned by the scholastics and professionals. Having taken the Western Civ classes in college in no way prepared me to actually wrestle with Dante's passion for punishment or Nietzsche sneering effort to convince us that the truth is an illusion.

Bottom Line: This is as much a reference book as a New York Times bestseller. (Don't miss his index). It answers the question Who Cares? with eloquence. It shows us the Great Books as being the most radical texts in existence. And it helps and explains the process every step of the way. 3 thumbs up

Denby seems to find a pagan exuberance in Boccaccio. But he is very much wrong to claim that Boccaccio (1313-1350) was a contemporary of Dante Alighieri(1265-1321). They were not. In Italy they teach Dante and Boccaccio in every school and everybody knows the difference between the two. But not in the USA, no body knows who Dante was and the few who know Boccaccio is probably because of Hollywood. So he play the part of the teacher and be the "Intellectual" who knows all and telling others what culture is with false statements typical of Hollywood. Because of "Intellectuals" like him and his statements that people around the world consider mostly of the USA to be ignorant, arrogant and presumptuous.

David Denby is a great writer and this really is a great book, as dorky as that may sound. He takes us into the inner workings of higher level education with such ease. I would recommend this book to any one about to enter into a high level of education beyond high school because it gives you a great look at some of the best works of our time.

David Denby wrote this book nearly a decade ago. Denby is a New York film critic; a left wing Jewish intellectual and a graduate of Columbia University. Thirty years after graduation from Columbia the 48 year old D decided he would return to a study of great literary works. He felt an emptiness in his gut. Denby's middle age malaise drove him to open the printed page for deep, enlighting and reflective thoughts on humanity, culture and his personal spiritual odyessey.
The book is a fascinating mini-course in great books. Denby takes us into the Columbia classroom where we meet different professors and students. They are a diverse group from African-Americans to foreign students; from liberals to fundamentalists; from young to old. In their dialogue the reader is asked to engage through the printed page with his/her own thoughts. There is much here dealing with the debate over the core curriculum in colleges; Denby's ties the work wit the purpose of education, reading and study in our non-reading, political correct land.
Great books by such giants of the Western tradition as Homer, the Greek dramatists; Augustine, Boccaccio; Dante; Machiavelli, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Rosseau, John Stuart Mill, John Locke, the Bible;
Simone Beavoir, Joseph Conrad, Jane Austen and Virginia Woolf have chapters
exploring their importance to Western culture.
Denby's book deserves reading. Worth your time.

The year was 1969, and New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison was preparing to make history. The often criticized Garrison had arrested local/international businessman Clay Shaw in conspiring to assassinate the President of The United States, John F. Kennedy. Garrison would accuse Shaw of Conspiring primarily with the CIA, to overthrow the Kennedy regime so that the Military/Industrial Complex could invade and overthrow Cuba and start a war in Southeast Asia. A mere three days after President Kennedy had been gunned down, the new President (Lyndon Baines Johnson) signed National Security Action Memo 273, which reversed Kennedy's withdrawl plans from Viet Nam and escalated the conflict, which eventually led to what is now known as the Viet Nam War. This outline is the backdrop for Garrison's book.

As is well-known, "On The Trail Of The Assassins" was one of two books credited in creating the motion picture and Academy Award Nominated Movie: JFK (along with Jim Marr's fine book "Crossfire"; please see my review of that book too!). So if you're looking for an exact duplication of the movie, you'll be pleasantly surprised to find that Garrison goes into much more detail and background then even the three-hour movie-thriller could provide. The one drawback and criticism that I have of the movie, the book, and of Garrison himself, was the lack of detailed information surrounding Jack Ruby's connections and associates who may have assisted the CIA in murdering the President. There are very few investigators these days who would rebuke Garrison on suggesting that the intelligence community within the United States orchestrated and carried out the murder of our 35th President. However, without even mentioning Ruby's role, even if it was only in taking orders from our government, Garrison undermines his own investigation and therefore this otherwise excellent book.

In closing, this is an extremely well written book, with lots of behind-the-scenes info that only a very few were privy to. Garrison is an excellent writer, and more importantly, was most likely correct in almost all aspects of the conspiracy. If this book is not in your own personal library, then most likely you're not fully aware of all the nuances of this case. This book is a must read!

Jim Garrison's book "On The Trail Of The Assassins" was one of two books used as the basis for Oliver Stone's movie "JFK" (the other was Kim Marrs' "Crossfire"). On that basis alone, highly recommended (for it led to the JFK Act and the ARRB). That said, this is a very good but not a great book. I would put James DiEugenio's book ON Garrison ahead of this one. Still, a good "read" with some good moments.
Vince Palamara

Now, maybe some people aren't interested in Mr. Garrison's point of view - but I am. And so are many others who repeatedly give On The Trail Of The Assassins a deservedly high mark. He was there in New Orleans and KNEW PERSONALLY most of the major players. How many investigators can say that? His overall conclusion of conspiracy is the same as many, many other independent researchers and the conclusion of 80 percent of the general public (Bugliosi be damned), only he was way ahead of his time. Had he known nothing of the truth surrounding the assassination, the CIA would never have bothered to smear his character or try ruin his investigation of JFK's murder by stealing his files for the trial of Clay Shaw. And yet it is Garrison who is accused of not playing fair. That's right... black is white, and white is black.

This book is one of my favorites in the assassination canon. It is brilliantly written, soulful, human, and full of observations about gov't and how it sometimes changes without the people being invited to the party. He knew of Oswald (murdered by Ruby), Ferrie ("suicide"), Bannister ("heart attack" in 1964) and Shaw (no autopsy ever done) - and had most of them not died under conspicuously strange circumstances, Garrison would never have been placed in the position of being the Lone-Nut scape goat for their lack of honesty and insight into this murder investigation - an investigation that is still continuing, though with little help from some of the people who should have known better after all these years.

Garrison's investigation and the trial of Clay Shaw were the inevitable result of the corrupt Warren Commission cover-up. Had the Warren Commission done its job and followed up leads in the first place, Garrison would never have ended up in the position of being the whipping boy for the Oswald as Lone-nut contingent. It was only through the efforts of Garrison that the Zapruder film ("back... and to the left") was viewed for the first time and the public began to see how dishonest the Warren Commision and the CIA were in lying to the American people about at least one more shooter.

Recent revelations about secret CIA assassinations plots can no longer be denied and now are out in the open in recent news events. It's your country. You might think of the 40-year tailspin the country has been in since our president was killed and the efforts of private citizens who've tried to expose the CIA skullduggery during the Kennedy years and beyond. Garrison took on these covert agencies in the name of justice, and had not Clay Shaw lied his head off under oath during his trial, it's conceivable that Garrison would have won and Shaw end up on a chain-gang where he belonged. In a conversation with Oliver Stone, Judge Haggarty, who presided over the Shaw trial, said that he himself never believed a word Shaw said. (This is discussed on the JFK special features dvd.)

The people of the country know all too well that Oswald didn't act alone - that is, if he shot anyone at all - and they're not about to let this conspiracy investigation end until the Federal gov't comes clean with what it knows. Every year more is being found out about certain participants, such as H. Howard Hunt's involvement, or David Morales, who was quoted as saying he was involved with the assassination of both JFK and RFK. Such revelations further vindicate Garrision's conclusion that the CIA was involved in the murder of Kennedy. Hunt and Morales (a man Hunt mentions) were both CIA. Gee, there seems to be a pattern here unless one has been playing ostrich with these recent CIA revelations.

In the meantime, those who continue to smear Garrison are only making themselves small in comparison. They're not worthy to shine the shoes of this great man - a hero in every sense of the word in this sordid tale of political corruption, murder and media cover-up. Ten stars for On The Trail Of The Assassins and Jim Garrision. ZERO stars for the now documented CIA interference of Garrison's investigation and the perjury on the witness-stand of Clay Shaw. Even certain pro-conspiracy researchers wrongly denegrate Garrison and they should be ashamed of themselves now that Garrison's conclusions are being vindicated. They haven't half the courage of a Garrison, and no one other than he and Mark Lane have ever had the balls to take any of these arrogant, politically criminal jerks to trial (H. Howard Hunt by Lane) for lying about their complicity in the murder and cover-up of Kennedy's assassination. And I'm not the only citizen who feels this way. For more information on the coup d'etat in Dallas, read District Attorney Garrison's revealing book and witness courage under fire.... Grow up, America.

I avoided reading this book when it was first published thinking it was but a mere rehash of Garrison's earlier book "A Heritage of Stone." However, thirty years on, I have pleasantly discovered that I was greatly mistaken. "On the Trail of the Assassins" is not a rehash, but stands quite sufficiently on its own.

More than anything else, it is first a devastating critique of the Warren Commission's Report; perhaps the best there is so far. Second, it is written by a first-class legal mind. And whatever else one might say about Jim Garrison, it is difficult to ignore the fact that he has one of the best legal minds in this nation. Third, it is a summary report of the Garrison investigation, which again, it is difficult to ignore that Garrison, on a shoe string budget, and with a handful of mostly volunteers, did a much better job investigating the JFK assassination than all of the nation's institutional police and intelligence machinery combined. And finally, the book is Garrison's own defense of the case he lost against the only man ever to be charged with JFK's assassination, Clay Shaw.

As a critique, Garrison attacks the slipshod way in which federal and Texas investigations pursued (or failed to pursue) the evidence and suspects -- other than the "carefully prepared patsy" Lee Harvey Oswald. Among these ways is the fact that Oswald was interrogated for more than 30 hours without a transcript; that the three tramps found in the rail car a few feet from the grassy knoll were released without even recording their names; and the general lack of curiosity on the part of the FBI and Dallas police authorities in following leads, protecting evidence, and in interrogating witnesses.

Garrison's legal astuteness is on display in a number of ways in the book: in the way he corralled information from informants; the way he collated and peeled back his evidence to attain maximum courtroom effect; the way he shaped theories based on where the evidence led; and in the way he parried defense moves and the counter-moves against him made generally by the federal authorities, who curiously always viewed him as a threat and hindrance to their limp but "predetermined" investigation.

With only a handful of investigators, researchers and contributors, Garrison fell just short of cracking the crime of the century. One must wonder out loud what would have happened if, instead of trying to derail and undermine his investigation, the government would have supported him?

It seemed clear even to Garrison, that his case against Clay Shaw was a lost cause even before he entered the courtroom. However, if one looks carefully at the theoretical framework Garrison constructed, in which Shaw was just one of a number of important elements, it is clear that Garrison was on the right track; and that Shaw's acquittal was more about the lack of witnesses to confirm Garrison's evidence, than it was about Shaw's guilt or innocence. That is why after forty years, a great deal, if not all of Garrison's theory has been borne out.

.Whether you believe Garrison's theories or not, this book is a report on investigative, legal, and police work of a very high order. Five Stars.

The late Jim Garrison's book "On The Trail Of The Assassins" was in large part the basis for Oliver Stone's 1991 motion picture "JFK", which is a film containing so many lies, half-truths, and misrepresentations of the facts surrounding John F. Kennedy's 1963 assassination, it's literally difficult to keep up with all of them.

I cannot watch one single scene of Oliver Stone's film without finding some distortion of the evidence in the real JFK or J.D. Tippit murder cases. Some are small things being distorted; and some are great big ones. One example (among dozens) being: Oliver Stone's version of shoe clerk Johnny Brewer's testimony re. Lee Harvey Oswald's manner of dress when Brewer encountered Oswald shortly after Oswald had shot and killed policeman Tippit.

Stone, in his film, has Oswald (Gary Oldman) wearing a jacket as he enters the Texas Theater and is seen by Brewer....and in one of the movie's "Deleted Scenes" (on the DVD version of the film), Kevin Costner (playing Garrison) even does a voice-over (lie) re. Brewer's testimony, with Costner saying "Brewer said the man was wearing a jacket".

Brewer, in reality, said exactly the opposite during his Warren Commission testimony:

Mr. BELIN -- "Will you describe the man you saw?"
Mr. BREWER -- "He was a little man, about 5'9", and weighed about 150 pounds is all. ... And had brown hair. He had a brown sports shirt on. His shirt tail was out."
Mr. BELIN -- "Any jacket?"
Mr. BREWER -- "No."

Another interesting part of the Tippit portion of the movie "JFK" is Oliver Stone's Audio Commentary during this part of the film, which is riddled with inaccuracies. Stone has the audacity to spout the following lie re. the Tippit shooting on the DVD's Commentary soundtrack:

"Not one credible witness has really identified Oswald as a single shooter {of Officer Tippit}. In fact, the only significant testimony applies two to three shooters." -- O. Stone

Therefore, per Mr. Stone (and Garrison said pretty much the same thing years earlier), the "only credible" witness must have been Acquilla Clemmons, who, as far as I am aware, was THE ONLY witness who ever said there was more than one person involved in the Tippit slaying.

Stone, like Jim Garrison before him, would simply rather believe his OWN version of events, rather than the multiple witnesses who never saw more than one shooter (with that one single shooter being positively identified as Oswald by said witnesses).

It's interesting, indeed, that Stone thinks the "only significant testimony" re. the Tippit crime came from Clemmons. Whereas, people like Markham, Tatum, and Scoggins (who were all closer than Clemmons to the scene of the murder) are deemed less "significant", merely, no doubt, because they don't fit into Stone's (or Garrison's) "CT Landscape" surrounding the murder.

I wonder if people realize just how many outright lies are contained in Oliver Stone's 3-hour, 15-minute motion picture? The number is simply staggering. And that number of distortions is increased considerably on the DVD version of the film, when the Audio Commentary Track by Mr. Stone and all of the "Deleted and Extended Scenes" are included as well.

And a great deal of this deliberate misinformation put forth on the movie screen came directly out of this book authored by Jim Garrison.

Another great place to see more of Mr. Garrison's skewed views of the JFK case is to read Garrison's 1967 "Playboy Magazine" interview. Like Stone's movie, that Playboy article will keep you busy as you try to keep up with the inaccurate things Garrison keeps saying in that lengthy piece. The whole interview can be read here:

www.jfklancer.com/Garrison2.html


Selected examples of Mr. Garrison's paranoia and loony-toon conspiracy talk, taken from that Playboy interview, are provided via the quotes below. My own rebuttal arguments follow each quote:


"Though he {Oswald} may not have known why he was instructed to do so, this was undoubtedly why he got the job at the Texas School Book Depository Building. The conspirators knew this would place him on the scene and convince the world that a demented Marxist was the real assassin." -- Jim Garrison; 1967

The above Garrison gem totally distorts (or just flat-out ignores) the true and documented facts about how Oswald got his job at the Depository in mid-October of '63. It was suburban Dallas housewives Linnie Mae Randle and Ruth Paine who were directly responsible for placing Lee Harvey Oswald in the TSBD, by way of ordinary garden-variety happenstance.

Garrison must, therefore, believe that Mrs. Paine, who arranged Oswald's job interview with Depository boss Roy Truly, was one of the main "conspirators" who was setting up Oswald to take the fall for JFK's murder the following month (which would also have to mean that Paine had detailed knowledge of the President's motorcade route more than a month before November 22). Garrison must also think that Roy Truly was a big part of the patsy plot, because it was Mr. Truly who actually hired Oswald (even though nobody was holding a shotgun to Truly's head forcing him to hire Lee).

The commonly-held belief that Lee Oswald was "placed" in the Texas School Book Depository by evil plotters prior to 11/22/63 is a desperate attempt by CTers like Mr. Garrison to attach unprovable and unsupportable conspiratorial "strings" to a random event that involved several individuals...individuals whose collective and synchronized actions could not possibly have been foreseen and controlled by a group of behind-the-scenes conspirators.

---------------

"Anyone who takes the time to read the Warren Report will find that of the witnesses in Dealey Plaza who were able to assess the origin of the shots, almost two-thirds said they came from the grassy-knoll area in front and to the right of the Presidential limousine and not from the Book Depository." -- Jim Garrison; 1967

This is pure nonsense. There were, indeed, several witnesses who said they heard shots coming from in front of JFK's car, but Garrison has severely skewed the stats to support his claim of Knoll shooters. His "almost two-thirds" figure is not even close to being accurate when talking about the number of witnesses who said they heard frontal shots. And even amongst other CTers, virtually no other pro-conspiracy author has ever rigged those stats in such an out-of-whack manner.

The fact is that more than half of all earwitnesses heard shots coming from the direction of the Book Depository, and not from the Knoll. And an even more illuminating statistic reveals that less than 5% of all earwitnesses heard shots from more than just a single general location (front vs. rear). That stat speaks volumes....because even CTers admit to SOME rear shots.

An interesting tabulation of this data can be found below:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/shots4.jpg

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/earwitnesses.htm

---------------

"The second shot struck the President in the back; the location of this wound can be verified not by consulting the official autopsy report, but by perusing the reports filed by two FBI agents who were present at the President's autopsy. Both stated unequivocally that the bullet in question entered President Kennedy's back and did not continue through his body." -- Jim Garrison; 1967

Therefore, Mr. Garrison is, in essence, saying that he is much more likely to trust the word of FBI agents (who, of course, were not doctors and were not conducting the President's autopsy) rather than take the word of the three physicians who each signed the official autopsy report. After all, why believe the autopsy doctors when you COULD just trust as Gospel the word of a bystander? ~sarcasm alert~

Plus: Why didn't these two FBI agents get the conspirators' memo which, if CTers are right about the success of the Patsy Plot, must have been passed out to nearly everyone in Officialdom on 11/22, a memo that probably said: "Attn. All Agents -- We're framing Oswald tomorrow; so remember to falsify as much evidence as humanly possible to ensure conviction of patsy".

Evidently some people who needed to see it never received that important document.

---------------

"We have also located another man who was not involved in the shooting but created a diversionary action in order to distract people's attention from the snipers. This individual screamed, fell to the ground, and simulated an epileptic fit, drawing people away from the vicinity of the knoll just before the President's motorcade reached the ambush point." -- Jim Garrison; 1967

Yet another outright lie from the lips of District Attorney Garrison. The man who had the so-called "simulated epileptic fit" was fully identified by the FBI on May 26, 1964. His name was Jerry Belknap, a man who had a history of epilepsy since childhood. Belknap also proved to the FBI that he had paid the ambulance bill ($12.50) after he was taken to Parkland Hospital.

---------------

"President Kennedy was killed for one reason: because he was working for a reconciliation with the U.S.S.R. and Castro's Cuba. His assassins were a group of fanatic anti-Communists with a fusion of interests in preventing Kennedy from achieving peaceful relations with the Communist world." -- Jim Garrison; 1967

Any solid, verifiable proof of such accusations, Mr. Garrison? Any physical evidence whatsoever that shows JFK was killed by more than one gun? .... The answers to those two questions are: No and No.

But the lack of physical evidence never stopped a hard-boiled CTer....that's been proven over and over again by a vast assortment of conspiracists who have more theories up their sleeve than a dog has fleas.

---------------

"In summation, there were at least five or six shots fired at the President from front and rear by at least four gunmen, assisted by several accomplices. At this stage of events, Lee Harvey Oswald was no more than a spectator to the assassination -- perhaps in a very literal sense. James Altgens snapped a picture that shows a man with a remarkable resemblance to Oswald, standing in the doorway of the Depository. The Altgens photograph indicates the very real possibility that at the moment Oswald was supposed to have been shooting Kennedy, he may actually have been standing outside the front door watching the motorcade. .... I don't believe that Oswald shot anybody on November 22nd -- not the President and not Tippit." -- Jim Garrison; 1967

It seems as though these devilishly-clever conspirators forgot one important thing when they were setting up LHO -- they forgot their brains. For, who WITH brains would allow their lone "Patsy" to casually drift outside and be photographed and seen by countless witnesses when the plotters need to have Lee Harvey on the 6th Floor at 12:30? Per Mr. Garrison's account of Oswald possibly being "Doorway Man", evidently the real assassins were indeed brainless and lacked the common sense to keep Oswald where he wouldn't be able to establish a credible alibi for his 12:30 whereabouts.

Just think about these Garrison remarks for a moment longer too -- "At least five or six shots were fired at the President from front and rear ... by at least four gunmen".

Doesn't a "4-Shooter, 6-Shot, 1-Patsy" assassination plot seem a bit unlikely to anyone else but this writer? Would any professional killers actually attempt to "frame" a lone fall guy in that type of overkill fashion? In my opinion, no pro hit men would go about the complicated task of setting up Oswald (or anybody else) in such a needlessly-reckless way.

A single "pro" hit man could have easily killed JFK with one or two shots (probably just one) from Oswald's "nest", without the need to clog the works with needless back-up gunmen hiding all around Dealey Plaza.

There is no possible way the conspirators could have ensured the success of a multi-shooter plot to frame JUST Oswald in the minutes during and after the shooting. No way. There are way too many uncontrollable factors that could block the success of that One-Patsy venture that Jim Garrison placed his faith in.

"Uncontrollable" items such as:

1.) A frontal shooter might very well have been seen by witnesses (and to think that EVERY witness under the sun could be easily "bought", "taken care of", and/or coerced by these plotters is, again, just too much wishful thinking on the conspirators' part, IMO).

2.) A frontal shooter might strike other occupants in the car, or strike somebody else in Dealey Plaza. But even if ONLY Kennedy is hit by a frontal gunman, there are massive problems to be "corrected" by the conspirators....bullets to be hidden and, of course, who knows how many obvious frontal wounds on the victim to be (somehow) eliminated -- and eliminated immediately before any non-conspirators can spill any beans. .... Only a person straight out of the booby hatch could believe that anyone, regardless of "power" or "pull", could get away with such a thing. It's just plain loony.

3.) The one "Patsy" (Oswald) could have easily, by pure accident and happenstance, established a perfect alibi for himself at the time when he was supposed to be on the 6th Floor shooting the President (as Mr. Garrison apparently DID think occurred, with Oswald being seen in a photo taken as the bullets were flying; even though all reasonable researchers know full well that "Doorway Man" was actually Billy Lovelady, and not Oswald; Lovelady even testified to that effect in 1964). ....

Plus -- If Oswald had really been in that doorway at 12:30, WHY ON EARTH DIDN'T HE SAY HE WAS THERE?! If he's got an ironclad alibi like that, why wouldn't he use it? Instead, he says not a word about being outside on the steps at 12:30, and even tells the police a provable lie re. his whereabouts (the lie about "having lunch with Junior {Jarman}" at the time of the shooting). How much sense does that make if Oswald had really been in the Depository doorway? ....

And the very fact that Oswald did NOT have a usable, provable alibi for exactly 12:30 PM is absolutely remarkable IF he had really been wandering around on the lower floors of the Depository (or was outside the building), as many CTers firmly believe; and even the most rabid of conspiracy theorists have got to admit, that from the "CT/Patsy" POV, Oswald's not having a usable/believable/solid alibi is certainly, by far, the biggest piece of LUCK in the whole "Patsy Plot". ....

These amazing Patsy Plotters just lucked out, evidently, in that Oswald was not seen by a single person inside or outside the TSBD at precisely the time of the assassination -- except by Howard Brennan, Ron Fischer, and Robert Edwards, of course, who saw Oswald or a nicely-arranged Oswald "imposter" in the Sniper's Nest at 12:30 or just seconds before 12:30.

4.) And the likelihood that all of the non-TSBD bullets are going to somehow get swept under the rug is extremely remote, especially in a Bob Groden-like scenario. Mr. Groden (per his book "The Killing Of A President"), incredibly, has ZERO of the shots coming from the Oswald window, and a total of up to TEN shots being fired...and ALL OF THEM coming from rifles other than the one rifle these idiot plotters are going to attempt to frame Oswald with! Could Groden's scenario BE any more reckless and preposterous?! I doubt it.

5.) And a biggie, that most CTers evidently don't think could have ever happened before 12:30 on November 22nd -- The one Patsy (Mr. LHO) could "get wise" to the plot that is brewing all around him and take measures to guarantee he could never be blamed for the actual assassination of John Kennedy.

When thinking about any "Frame Lee Oswald As The One Patsy" plan, I just cannot visualize any professional assassins (even for a minute) contemplating the use of multiple shooters; let alone some gunmen firing from the Grassy Knoll, i.e., the exact opposite direction from where their single dupe is supposed to be located.

---------------------

As the previously-mentioned quotes from the mouth of Mr. Garrison amply demonstate, if anyone has a desire to set out "On The Trail Of A Lunatic Conspiracy Theorist" -- look no further than Earling Carothers (Jim) Garrison.

I felt like this book was written for me. It was all i needed to know at the time. I realized that following Gods will was not done without courage and belief. I fell almost reborn it sounds remarkable but it is true. I came up with an excerise to help me remember Gods will and i remind myself everyday. Your in a room tied to a chair and a person comes in with a gun and holds it to your head and ask you one question,which you can only answer yes or no. Do you believe in God? Something to think about. Passages from the book that relates to this;
"Mine is always your highest thought, your clearest word,your grandest feeling. Anything less is from another source"God Bless!

Donýt waste you hard earned money! This book is utter nonsense written to swindle and mislead the weak-minded.

The "god" of this book is simply THE RHETORIC OF EASTERN MYSTICISM, which is ironic since that particular ýgodý is an impersonal force that could not communicate with anyone. The whole concept of this book is as idiotic as saying you could have a conversation with electricity.

The oxymoron of ýABSOLUTE RELATIVISMý is strongly preached throughout the book. There is no separation of right and wrong or good and evil. THE AUTHOR EXPECTS US TO PARK OUR BRAINS IN NEUTRAL and accept that the most wicked mass murders, serial rapists, and hate breathing racists are only ýbadý because we ýthinký they are bad, not because they really are evil. This ýgodý would have us believe that there is no difference between a Mother Teresa and an Adolph Hitler.

In an ever increasing age of moral relativism, which is a large reason for much of the current financial market woes, HELLO, it never ceases to amaze me the depths to which publishing companies will stoop to print any trash that can make a buck for them.

STAY AWAY FROM THIS BOOK, AS IT WONýT TELL YOU A THING ABOUT THE TRUE, PERSONAL CREATOR WHO LOVES YOU!

Beware of "Conversations with God" books

Conversations with God

Dr. James Dobson talked about this book twice this
week. It is devastating and parents and Christian
schools need to be aware of this. Do pass it on to
your pastor/church/e-mail addressees. Parents Beware
very disturbing information. Please read. Parents,
Grand parents, Aunts, Uncles, Please pay special
attention not only to the what your kids watch on TV
and in movie theaters and the music they listen to
but we must also be alert regarding the books they
read... Two particular books, Conversations with God
and Conversations with God for Teens, written by
Neil D Walsh. sound harmless enough by their titles
alone.

These books have been on the New York Times best
sellers list for a number of weeks; these
publications makes truth of the statement "Don't
judge a book by its cover/title". The author
purports to answer various questions from kids using
the "voice of God"

However, the "answers" that he gives are not
biblically-based and go against the very infallible
word of God.

For instance (and I paraphrase), when a girl asks
the question "why am I a lesbian?" His answer is
that she was born that way because of genetics (just
as you were born right-handed, with blue eyes,
etc.). Then, he tells her to go out and "celebrate"
her differences. Another girls poses the question "I
am living with my boyfriend. My parents say that I
should marry him because I am living in sin. Should
I marry him?" His reply is "Who are you sinning
against? Not me, because you have done nothing
wrong.

Another question asks about God's forgiveness of
sin. His reply - I do not forgive anyone because
there is nothing to forgive. There is no such thing
as right or wrong and that is what I have been
trying to tell everyone; do not judge people. People
have chosen to judge one another and this is wrong
because the rule is "judge not lest ye be judged".

And the list goes on. Not only are these books the
false doctrine of devils, but in some instances even
quote (in error) the Word of God. . These books (and
others like it) are being sold to school children
(The Scholastic Book Club) and we need to be aware
of what is being fed to our children. Our Children.

Our children are under attack. So I pray that you be
sober and vigilant about teaching your kids the Word
of God and guarding their exposure to worldly
mediums, because our adversary, the devil, roams
about as a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour
(1 Peter 5:8). And how many of us know that lions
usually hunt for the slowest, and weakest and
YOUNGEST
OF ITS PREY?

Pass this on to every believer you know. God BLESS!

I Lived in Colorado Springs just down the road from focas on the family for several years and the review I read about what James Dobson was saying struck me as funny. This man claims to be a godly and rightgious man hiself yet he is only in this for the money as well. You go into the gift shop at focas on the family and when you go to purchase anything in there on it, it says donation price is.... So that Mr Dobson does not have to pay taxes on it. So Who is the hipocrite here????? I do not know if this book is true or not but I would like to keep an open mind. None of us in this world knows the truth that lies out there the greatest gift we can give to ourselves and others is pure love and I think that is what is trying to be said in this book. There is no wrong or right way there is just faith and the ultimate to except everyone and everything and to obtaine that higher level and to love one another unconditionally......

I grew up in the church, l was bombarded with the bible and its endless threats of sin and hell. Finally through the Conversations of God books I have discovered a God that loves us all. Would you torture the ones you love for making mistakes? God is love. More love than you could ever understand. I am thankful to have found the truth, Finally! Thank you God.

The title of L.A. Times reporter Siegel's second legal thriller refers to an actual legal term intending not only to find fault with the state's case but to prove "actual" innocence. A novel idea.

His series protagonist, successful California defense attorney Greg Monarch might be wiser to refer his emotionally troubled old flame Sarah Trant's death row appeal to someone more neutral, but even a little poking around stirs up a murk of conspiracy and corruption in the small Eden-like community of El Nido.

When he finally gets past the stonewalling of the sheriff and DA, he discovers that the wealthy rancher who seems so sympathetic to Sarah was the prosecution's star witness, recipient of the dying man's last accusatory words. Better yet, a look at the autopsy photos shows a severed carotid artery - the man could not have spoken.

Withheld evidence, doctored reports, witness tampering - a miscarriage of justice could hardly be more easy to prove. But whatever the powers-that-be in El Nido are trying to hide, it binds enemies together in a conspiracy of silence. Monarch finds his case falling apart on the witness stand.

Tense courtroom drama, an underlying sense of menace and a mystery that grows more labyrinthine with every development makes this a well-written page-turner.

Greg Monarch is a Chumash County, CA, lawyer who has grown more than a little jaded at freeing the guilty even as he accepts an award as the county's top defense attorney. Against his wishes, he is drawn into a final death-row appeal by a Federal judge who is intrigued by the hand-written habeas corpus motion the convict has filed. When it turns out that the prisoner is an old romantic flame, Sarah Trent, Monarch is drawn further in, ultimately fighting for Sarah's post-conviction relief on the grounds of actual innocence.

In the course of the story, we enter the hidden little valley community of El Nido, fiercely protected by its citizens, chief of whom is Diana Sanborn, granddaughter of the community's founder. From the start, Monarch runs into obstacles that lead him deeper into Sarah's case, and obvious prosecutorial misconduct, but also into the dim history of El Nido, and some secret that seems to have become entangled in the murder for which Sarah waits to die.

Legal machinations, hidden histories, shadowy conspiracies, an approaching execution - author Siegel weaves all this together with multifaceted characters that one comes to care for. An excellent read.

This being the second book of Barry Siegel that I have read in my time as a reader I had an idea of what to expect. Even thought The Perfect Witness was not my favorite book of all-time I figured what the heck, I'll give `ol Mr. Siegel another shot to win over my high credential likings. Siegel did a decent job with Actual Innocence but did not top the charts with this one in my eyes.
As in The Perfect Witness, author Barry Siegel uses a lawyer as a main character. Once again this main character is Greg Monarch. Monarch plays a top notch lawyer in la Graciosa, California. After being named the county's top lawyer Monarch is asked to take a case which seems to already have a verdict, guilty. The case is for murder, the alleged murderer that Monarch is to defend is Sarah Trant. Prior to finding out who he would be defending, Monarch refused to take the case. The reason being that Trant had previously been found guilty five times. Eventually Monarch decides to meet and defend. He travels to the El Nido Valley, where Trant is being held, on his journey there he is involved in wreck and ends up at Diana Sanborn's residents. While spending time at the Sanborn residents he learns that there has been some key evidence left out of the trials. After the District Attorney and Trant's former attorney do not help Monarch goes on his own. He found that Brewster Tomaz, who was the man Trant was believed to have killed, was slashed from one side of his throat to the other and would not have been able to speak. Trant and Tomaz did not get along due to Tomaz's brainstorm of putting a health spa in El Nido However, a witness claims that Tomaz's last words were "Sarah Trant did this." Monarch pushes on to find the "real" truth as the El Nido locals work to cover themselves. As Monarch gets to the bottom of the case Siegel shows the scandals of a murder framing in a small community. But will the jury see this or will they help to cover the El Nido community, buy and read to find out if Monarch did enough digging to get to the bottom of what Trant says is the truth in order to prove her "Actual Innocence."
Lawyers Wanted! If you're a lawyer then this book definitely could be for you. If you're not a lawyer then you had better like murder trials. My experience was that of a Figure-Skating judge trying to determine a score for a contestant who pulled off many tough stunts at times but put you to sleep throughout the rest of the routine, it had its ups and its downs. The character development I thought was a definite plus, I felt that Greg Monarch especially was well-developed throughout the story. After finding out that he was La Graciosa's top lawyer Siegel then showed why as Monarch searched and searched until he found answers. Diana Sanborn's character also developed as she began as a real nice lady trying to help Monarch out and turned out much different. Another positive of this book was the believability. This was probably the thing that kept me most interested being that these things more than likely go on in today's world. As for the negatives, I would say the biggest downer for me was how the middle of the book drug on. Even though it was a key point in the book to explain Monarch searching for answers, I often caught myself dazing off wishing I was Brewster Tomaz so I would not have to sit through these core chapters.
As I stated above if you are a lawyer then this could be your book. If you like crime or even maybe mystery or suspense books you may also be in for a possible treat. If not then read at your own risk! If you do not qualify in the traits above and perhaps are just looking for a book to read on a rainy afternoon I would recommend spending a few more dollars and getting a book of better choice, but hey that's just my opinion. I just hope that no one is caught in "actual innocence" of reading a bad book.

This being the second book of Barry Siegel that I have read in my time as a reader I had an idea of what to expect. Even thought The Perfect Witness was not my favorite book of all-time I figured what the heck, I'll give `ol Mr. Siegel another shot to win over my high credential likings. Siegel did a decent job with Actual Innocence but did not top the charts with this one in my eyes.
As in The Perfect Witness, author Barry Siegel uses a lawyer as a main character. Once again this main character is Greg Monarch. Monarch plays a top notch lawyer in la Graciosa, California. After being named the county's top lawyer Monarch is asked to take a case which seems to already have a verdict, guilty. The case is for murder, the alleged murderer that Monarch is to defend is Sarah Trant. Prior to finding out who he would be defending, Monarch refused to take the case. The reason being that Trant had previously been found guilty five times. Eventually Monarch decides to meet and defend. He travels to the El Nido Valley, where Trant is being held, on his journey there he is involved in wreck and ends up at Diana Sanborn's residents. While spending time at the Sanborn residents he learns that there has been some key evidence left out of the trials. After the District Attorney and Trant's former attorney do not help Monarch goes on his own. He found that Brewster Tomaz, who was the man Trant was believed to have killed, was slashed from one side of his throat to the other and would not have been able to speak. Trant and Tomaz did not get along due to Tomaz's brainstorm of putting a health spa in El Nido However, a witness claims that Tomaz's last words were "Sarah Trant did this." Monarch pushes on to find the "real" truth as the El Nido locals work to cover themselves. As Monarch gets to the bottom of the case Siegel shows the scandals of a murder framing in a small community. But will the jury see this or will they help to cover the El Nido community, buy and read to find out if Monarch did enough digging to get to the bottom of what Trant says is the truth in order to prove her "Actual Innocence."
Lawyers Wanted! If you're a lawyer then this book definitely could be for you. If you're not a lawyer then you had better like murder trials. My experience was that of a Figure-Skating judge trying to determine a score for a contestant who pulled off many tough stunts at times but put you to sleep throughout the rest of the routine, it had its ups and its downs. The character development I thought was a definite plus, I felt that Greg Monarch especially was well-developed throughout the story. After finding out that he was La Graciosa's top lawyer Siegel then showed why as Monarch searched and searched until he found answers. Diana Sanborn's character also developed as she began as a real nice lady trying to help Monarch out and turned out much different. Another positive of this book was the believability. This was probably the thing that kept me most interested being that these things more than likely go on in today's world. As for the negatives, I would say the biggest downer for me was how the middle of the book drug on. Even though it was a key point in the book to explain Monarch searching for answers, I often caught myself dazing off wishing I was Brewster Tomaz so I would not have to sit through these core chapters.
As I stated above if you are a lawyer then this could be your book. If you like crime or even maybe mystery or suspense books you may also be in for a possible treat. If not then read at your own risk! If you do not qualify in the traits above and perhaps are just looking for a book to read on a rainy afternoon I would recommend spending a few more dollars and getting a book of better choice, but hey that's just my opinion. I just hope that no one is caught in "actual innocence" of reading a bad book.

This book was quite ordinary. The audio done by Ed Asner was awful. His voice is so hoarse sounding that he is often barely understandable. His female voices were OK except for one or two that were too low in volume. Several of the male voices were so loud that I was constantly adjusting the volume.

I might possibly read another Siegal book, but I will never buy another audiobook with Asner as the narrator.

Honor's Voice is terrific in two respects: both for its insights into Lincoln and for its insights into effective communication. I recommend it to anyone who uses words for a living, and for anyone who wants a fascinating, insightful look into how Lincoln crafted some of the most important speeches in our nation's history.

The reason this shouldn't be the first Lincoln book you read is that the author presupposes that the reader already has a basic command of Lincoln's life story. This book really speaks to those who are familiar with the various bits of Lincoln lore that permeate our culture: his wrestling match with Jack Armstrong, his courtship of Ann Rutledge, his off-and-on-again relationship with Mary Todd, and various accounts of his bookishness, his depression, and his early flirtations with agonisticism, among others.

Having said that, I like this book more than any of the standard Lincoln biographies I own (I have the Thomas, Donald, and Sandburg bios.) The very best thing to read, of course, is Lincoln himself (his collected speeches and writings), but of the biographies written by others, this may be my favorite.

The author dissects several of Lincoln's often-told formative experiences. In one example, he will explore the story of the wrestling match with Jack Armstrong, and ask:

-- When is the earliest surviving account of the story, and what is the source?
-- How has the story evolved over the years?
-- How true is it? What does the evidence show?
-- What is the significance of the story?

For those who don't know the Jack Armstrong story, it is basically as follows: Lincoln was getting harassed by a gang of toughs in his town, and to deal with it, he challenged their leader, Jack Armstrong, to a wrestling match. The match was widely anticipated and witnessed, and Lincoln had the better of Armstrong. Afterwards, Armstrong restrained his allies, saying that Lincoln had won fair and square, and afterwards, he was a loyal friend to Lincoln, as were his associates.

Like so many stories in the Lincoln canon, it's become a parable. It is a lesson about courage and forthrightness and insisting on fair play. In Lincoln's case, it also fills out the legend about his own physical strength, and how he became popular in his home town.

Wilson's book analyzes many such stories. The anecdotes have varying degrees of truth, though on balance, most of the standard Lincoln tales do appear to be based in fact, even if they have become embellished over the years.

You will like this book if you already enjoy the history of Lincoln, and if you like a little skeptical scientific inquiry thrown into your reading material. The reader is asked to travel along with the author as he gets to the bottom of the various issues surrounding Lincoln, and it's an enjoyable journey.

I personally feel that this book is much more pleasant than as a mere exercise in critical history. I found that the dissection of these stories brought Lincoln much more fully to life for me. You get a much more multi-faceted view of the man because you aren't really relying on one author's perspective, as tends to be the case in other Lincoln biographies.

It's an unusual work of history, and not the first Lincoln book to read, but it truly is outstanding. Highly recommended.

This book staggered me. Its careful research is combined with acute observations by author Wilson, on topics ranging from a fateful wrestling match that made Lincoln's reputation in a frontier village to Lincoln's bewilderment when courting Mary Todd. Wilson here produced one of the finest volumes ever to appear in the crowded field of Lincoln books. For anyone interested in how Lincoln's pre-presidential years shaped his conduct in the White House, Honor's Voice will be rewarding. It is one of the most significant Lincoln biographies I have ever read.

This is one of the most astonishing books I have ever read. I love history and yet this portrait of Abraham Lincoln is so much more. Had he been a Blacksmith, he would have been a hero. This was a man, a real man - no the greatest of men...who could not dissemble, lie, cheat, even when it came to marrying a woman that he knew (after they became engaged) would risk ruining his very life. He entered into a promise...and he would not go back on it. Of course, in those times, Breach of Promise (please read Anne Perry's book on this), was a serious offense against a woman's honor. But Lincoln carried this same integrity into everything he did no matter how difficult or huge - like the Civil War. I would hope that any student of American history would not miss out on this very important Masterpiece. As the cliche goes, if we do not learn from our own history, we are doomed (you know the rest....).

Teachers in criminal justice classes, I am told, often stage mock crimes in their classrooms. In the middle of a lecture, for example, a bandit will barge in, threaten the students, and make off with the professor's wallet. The students, at first shocked but then relieved when told that it was a staged event, are then asked to describe the event. What did the suspect look like? How tall was he? What color hair did he have? What was he wearing? What did he say? Invariably, there are multiple answers to those questions. People saw different things. No one version of what occurred is totally accurate.

Wilson's book confronts that perennial problem of human perception. Though his 'transformation of Lincoln' plows familiar ground - how one solitary, unschooled backwoods man transformed himself into a national, albeit polarizing figure, through willpower, endurance, ambition, guts, and brains - his careful forensic method, as judge and jury of a multitude of competing facts and interpretations, makes this book a compelling tale, as much about how history is written as it is about how Lincoln evolved.

And this is why I disagree with the reviews that describe this book as long-winded, tough-sledding and over-detailed. In Honor's Voice, Wilson provides a valuable glimpse into the historian's bag of tricks. Wilson takes each of the iconic moments of Lincoln's life - his storied wresting match with Jack Armstrong, his self-education, his disastrous romance with Ann Rutledge - and peels apart the layers, examining the historical record as closely as possible, evaluating the claims of eyewitnesses and second-hand sources, and holding each up to scrutiny before making any assertions; and even then, he is admirably cautious. Wilson presents a lot of quotes, exactly as written, from contemporaries who witnessed, or claimed to have witnessed, crucial events in Lincoln's life, and asks: Is this the truth? Who could have benefit from enhancing the truth? Who was really there? What about the quote lends it authenticity, or falsity? Yes, the narrative covers the same event numerous times, but this is the price one pays of exactness. Like the criminal justice students who have competing recollections of a recent event, not one of Lincoln's contemporaries knows the whole truth. But taken together, one gets a more clear picture of what might have happened.

The risk, of course, is boredom and the frustration of dealing with multiple sources of the same event; but the reward is a new appreciation of Lincoln the man, as well as the historian's challenge of teasing out the facts in an era long since vanished.

I directed this play for my high school and I love it. It's classic Neil Simon. His characters in this play are so real and histercaly funny because they are just normal human beings.

My School is doing this for their play. After reading, I found that Neil SImon's Plaza Suite went nowhere, and at the end it left me gasping for some breathing air.

Plaza Suite, in neil simon style, combines real life messages and upbeat comedy. All three acts show a peak to life and Neil Simon's genius in bringing the characters to life. I was Muriel when I performed in it. I do have a bias, but I have also studied the script in great detail. I am directing Act 2 this year and I chose it for it's heart and comedy. Plaza suite is interesting, funny, and bound to leave you with a good feeling. Even though you see the characters in one setting, you explore many different parts of their lives. The play is character driven, in neil simon fashion and I recommend this to anyone who wants to read a mixture of real-life and comedy. Other Neil Simon play's I recommend are: The Good Doctor, Rumors, London Suite, Sunshine Boys, Brighton Beach Memoirs, and of course Biloxi Blues.

"First Cases" is a collection of the first short stories by classic private eye writers featuring their heros (or heroines). That should be the book's caveat, as many of the protagonists had already appeared in full length novel form before these stories were published. The lineup includes such luminaries as Loren Estlemen's Amos Walker, Lawrence Block's Matthew Scudder, Bill Pronzini's "Nameless" and Editor Robert J. Randisi's own Miles Jacoby. All of the series characters featured are currently ongoing (or at least were as of 1996, when the book was published). Editor Randisi knows his stuff, having been the founder of the Private Eye Writers of America.

All that said, the quality of the stories varies. Some of the writers had yet to really find their voice and some (especially the older) stories are somewhat by-the-numbers. Nevertheless, the book is an inetersting historical artifactfor those who want insight on how their heros developed. My personal favorites are Block's and Estlemen's. They show again why they are, for my money, the two best and most consistent private eye writers currently working in the genre.

This is a beautifully crafted book of verses

I purchased this book for my elderly mother as it typified her approach to life. She would be forever quoting sections from the book as her behaviour reflected a phrase or section from it. (and yes - she did wear purple!)

It is a gentle reflection on ageing and how too often in our younger years we are driven by fad and fashion. I would thouroughly recommend it to anyone who has elderly parents - and to the parents themselves.

This book is as unique and entertaining as an 8 course meal served by a team of strippers in a library.

I like Bill Clinton MORE after reading this book and suspect that he is privately a Joe Eszterhas fan. And why not? Joe Eszterhas has more closet fans than any modern American writer.

No closet for me, thanks. Joe rules.

And a P.S. to Bill... America didn't hold the knobber against you. It's just that after JFK and Marilyn, we have pretty high standards. No hoggin' in the oval office, bro. If it had been Charlize Theron we would all have high fived you. Even Hillary would have understood.

:)

Eszterhas the book writer is more intriguing and ideosyncratic than Eszterhas the screen writer. Be prepared for a 60's counter culture apologia pro vita sua with interesting detours (such as a tribute to Barry Goldwater).

The book is ultimately a tour of America the Horny across the life span of baby boomers. "Life span" is the proper term, since there is raunch enough for a lifetime. The organizing principle is that Bill Clinton is the avatar for the sexual acting out of the rock and roll lifestyle. Clinton is not particularly revered here, although Hilary is portrayed as so cold (and maybe gay) that Bill had little choice.

There is a lot of malicious gossip here, but some is true. The challenge is distinguishing between gossip that is malicious and that which is false and malicious.

For all the astoundingly diverse sexual activity described, there is a clinical detachment. Eszterhas uses few words (save when quoting others) that the New York Times would not print.

Eszterhas narrates lots of the book and is not an especially skilled reader-- although the ring of authenticity he gives keeps it from being annoying. Ed Asner is a fine reader.

Be prepared for Eszterhas's substantial ego.

I tend to vote Republican but refuse to align myself with the Right Wing or Moral Majority. I'm the guy in the middle that the candidates are really after. I say that as any review on this book should be tempered by the politics of the reader. JE is an avowed Democrat with socialist leanings. Read his most recent book "American Animal" to verify this. So it was surprising as I read the first third of this book that after an initial bow to Clinton as the Rock & Roll Prez, one of "us", he then seems to chastise him for his fatal flaws. This part of the book is interesting, engaging, but also somewhat repetitive. I still couldn't wait to read it my allotted hour a night.

But there is only so much you can talk about this subject and JE rambles on and on until he finally manages to really offend me. How? Well, I just finished his most recent book, "American Animal" an autobiography which I immensely enjoyed. Full of Hollywood stories. But reading this, I see that JE has included many of the stories I enjoyed from his autobiography in this political commentary/fantasy. So is he a writer with a message or is he just repeating his few stories to make a buck?

I don't know what to make of this book, thus my title. Did I enjoy some parts? Yes. Are there some interesting stories? Yes. But there is a lot of waste. It's like wandering thru a jungle with a machete looking for your trail. When you find it, it's worth the work. So maybe the only item I can add of interest came from reading this with some years of aging. JE takes on Arianna Huffington who he spends quite a bit of time describing her history to show what a bad person she is and how she climbed to the top while stepping on other people's faces. But would JE have included these chapters in this form if he had known that within a few years she would shift sides and now disavow her right wing leanings? I think not.

This is not a great book. But if you enjoy reading, maybe you will enjoy it.

This is the truth! I never read any other of these exposes and during the majority of the media coverage of the episode that led to Clinton's impeachment- I switched to the animal planet. After reading some reviews on Amazon, I bought this book and I'm glad I did. "The Comeback Kid" takes plenty of flack from the author, but Eszterhas spares none. I like the names: The Big Kielbasa- Wilt Chamberlain, "The Bag Lady of Sleaze"- Lucienne Goldberg, the lady who got the story into the media,"Hilla the Hun," "The Night Creature"- Nixon- "The Manchurian Candidate"- McCain- "The Rat Woman,"- Linda Tripp, it goes on to the current president named, "The Crown Prince." The coarsest individual does have the funniest lines, i.e. LBJ- too much to repeat here. The few who seem to get off lightly, like Monica, and believe it or not- Barry Goldwater and Newsweek Magazine who had the story and never printed it.
Perhaps the most effective and distressing part of the book is when Eszterhas does a mini retrospective of all the things we didn't want to know,but did over the years, here are a few: Sen. Harkin blowing his nose on CNN without a handkerchief, Bush Sr. throwing up in China, Buchanon saying "Congress is an Israeli occupied territory," Bob Dylan and Elizabeth T., LBJ turning to the side and taking a whizz at an outdoor press conference, Nixon and Kissinger kneeling together and praying, Spiro Agnew, "If you've seen one city slum you've seen them all," Michael Jackson and his chimp, David Bowie and Mick Jagger. (?)

Eszterhas obviously knows more and remembers more than is probably good for him, but his prose is stunning as is the manner by which he weaves the book together- even with some fiction. The author was the screenwriter for Fatal Attraction and had a relationship with Sharon Stone- who also takes some upper cuts and was rumored to have been intimate with Clinton as well. I definitely recommend reading this- for the humor and frankly, The gossip is completely consuming.

What a memorable and highly rewarding read. This book is much more than the sum of it's salacious and often repugnant contents; it's also a lecture on morality and a history lesson as well. I don't see how someone who reads this book can be derisive regarding the interlacing of fiction or the sheer amount of sordid detail. Given Eszerhas' talent for script writing and keen interest for the underbelly of the American society, how his book is put together should be no surprise. It's certainly not a novel or a bucket of heresay poo.
I am one who is generally both revolted and amused by the tabloids, and shows like Entertainment Television. But I could not put this book down. The book is informative and revealing, and I found myself lauging out loud and cringing, often while reading the same paragraph. I particularly enjoyed the moments where Eszterhas reflects on his own life; it's probably the most engaging aspect of the book. Expecting to find a smutty and over the top tell-all, I found something rich in intelligent, values-based writing.