Events Books

Nat Hentoff is one of the few writers who has not been selective in his defense of the First Amendment--the only absolute, no-exceptions law in the United States. As a result, he has been castigated by both the Left and the Right, depending on whose right to free speech is endangered.



He performs an invaluable public service when he exposes the inherent hypocrisy of groups claiming that their First Amendement rights are being disrespected. Evangelical Christians wring their hands ad nauseam and wail about how the ACLU would make it illegal for someone to sit under a tree riding the Bible. Even worse than the sheer idiocy of this prediction is the fact that the same evangelical Christian would happily take away my right to sit under the adjacent tree reading HUSTLER. Although it revolts me, I know that someone else can ride the city bus reading MEIN KAMPF and be 100% within their rights.



I encourage anyone who wants to keep the future of free expression alive--either as a consumer or as a creator, or both--to read FREE SPEECH FOR ME, BUT NOT FOR THEE. Hentoff spoke of his own brushes with it when, during his days as a VILLAGE VOICE commentator, he was censored

I first read this in college in the mid-1990's when a professor assigned it. It made me think and question about what it means when we say we protect freedom of speech. To truly protect that right, that means you have to allow speech even when you don't like or disagree with what is being said. Fast forward to the last 4 years. Americans of all people are responding to speech they don't like with death threats -- makes me wonder why we are so scared of others having a difference of opinion.

This is one of the most important books of our time. Hentoff is a passionate believer in free speech who recognizes that if speech is truly to be free, he must protect the expression even of ideas he abhors. He catalogs with equal regret the efforts of both the right and the left to censor speech they don't like. While being sympathetic to those who object to allowing bigots, racists, pornographers, atheists, and others of many stripes the right to lay out ideas that one group or another finds repugnant, he makes both an intellectual and an emotional case for allowing everyone to have their say, no matter how much this may offend some. He points out that suppressing speech doesn't get rid of the underlying thought, but merely drives it underground and gives it the benefit of martyrdom. His corrective to bad speech is good speech: those who believe in their ideas should not try to censor other views, but should openly confront and refute them with opposing ideas.

His prescription can be hard to accept at times, but the case he makes is persuasive that in the end, liberty of speech is the best guarantee of a free society and of the ability for that society to work through the all viewpoints to reach agreement on which opinions are social desirable and which are not.

Democracy and freedom are hard masters, but they are worth it.

Hentoff deals with the subject of free speech in the most objective manner I've seen. As a writer for the Village Voice, he could not be accused of being a right-winger, so criticism of the hypocrisy of the left is very credible. I've always thought it ironic that the left portrays itself as having a lock on being open-minded, yet it is all too happy to restrict speech that presents a contrary point of view.

Hentoff gives many examples, including some of his own, where both sides of the political spectrum attempt to censor the speech of the other. He discusses everything from efforts on college campuses to prevent non politically correct subjects from being discussed to censorship he faced while writing his columns.

Great book for people to read on both sides of the political spectrum. Perhaps it could move more people on both sides to actually listen to opposing points of view rather than trying to prevent the discussion. We have to understand that the 1st Amendment was not designed to protect speech we agree with--their would be no need for such protection. Being offended is really not a constitutional reason to preclude speech (in my view as well as Hentoff's).

Hentoff, one of the foremost free speech advocates, presents stories, many involving his own experiences, of individual examples of censorship initiatives from both the 'left' and 'right'. He doesn't really present a comprehensive philosophical case, but rather provides concrete examples of the necessity for rigorous protection of free speech.

I've read all the reviews of Schmidt's efforts on matter of European Integration. And here's what I think: She is destined to embrace the English model and the English model, I'm convinced, will embrace her. The two will be as one. They will be a European Union far more robust than anything concocted in Brussels. So I, for one, would like to celebrate that true union of politics and passion and hoist a glass to Schmidt and this English Model!

I've read all the reviews of Schmidt's efforts on matter of European Integration. And here's what I think. She is destined to embrace the English model and the English model, I'm convinced will embrace her. They will be as one. A European Union far more robust than anything concocted in Brussels. So I, for one, would like to celebrate that true union of politics and passion and hoist a glass to Schmidt and this English Model!

As I see it, the English model must be (and no doubt is, in Schmidt's extraordinary hands) smart, generous, and prone to displays of great good humor. The English model must display the kind of maganimous spirit that say, one brother-in-law might display to another brother-in-law if the latter brother-in-law were, say, a writer needing a place to stay in England.

I've read through the review string, and I must ask about the referenced English model. Please tell me more. I know of course of Schmidt's work on French models and German models and the energy she devoted to the models of Italy and America. Before I endorse this new effort, I think we should know more.

I agree with most of what the earlier reviewer stated. Schmidt is definitely 5-star material. But her most recent efforts have in point of fact focused almost exclusively on the English Model, and with amazing results.

I ordered the book for a class I'm taking. I find the book to be very interesting and it keeps my interest. Key points that I need to know are included in the text. Excellently written.

The book's content is precise, to the point and not repetitive in hard to understand grammer. The context was really reliable for the course I am currently taking. The chapters are not long and drawn out yet the examples the author uses are up-to-date, on point and target. I truly liked this book because it is a great read outside of higher education.

Kim Klein is a nationally known expert in the area of fundraising, and demonstrates comprehensive knowledge of all aspects of fundraising in the book. She presents the information in an easy to understand format, and shares her expertise in a motivational manner. I highly recommend this book, even if you have been in fundraising for a number of years.

This is a must read for any staff member of a small not for profit organization. It's a bit freeky how she knows so much about my group, and then cuts to the chase on how to address the problems identified.

I love this book. It's been around for a while in one form or another. Currently it is in its 5th revision. And with each revision the author has refined it. As a result, it is very well written and outlined. It is also really good because the author is a fundraising practitioner and teaches what she does. She really knows her stuff when it comes to fundraising. At least that's the impression I get from reading her book.

Fundraising at a nonprofit, whether large or small, is basically a profit center. It's a business! This book treats it as a business and has the feel of a startup guide for that business. As a SCORE volunteer believe me when I say this book has the feel of a startup guide; I've read my fair share of startup guides for for-profits and counseled enough wanta-be entrepreneurs on how to start a business. This book is a startup guide.

So how is this book a startup guide? Well, it advocates preparing a written fundraising plan BEFORE you put together your fundraising office and start raising funds. It describes a "fundraising framework" that you must understand before you can prepare a sound and successful plan. Then it tells you about time-tested strategies for acquiring and keeping donors - the strategies that will enable your nonprofit to build a foundation or base of donors from which all successful fundraising will emanate. And next it tells you about the time-tested strategies for upgrading donors so they will (or can be expected to) give larger gifts as time moves forward. There are also sections that explain how to setup and manage a fundraising office, and how to prepare a budget and write a fundraising plan.

The book could have stopped there. That's all that a startup really needs to know and do to be successful at raising sufficient funds to provide its services and distribute its products. However, the author tells us more. She talks about feasibility studies and capital campaigns. And she talks about actually being a professional fundraiser, and about special or unique circumstances where traditional fundraising methods don't always work well.

I really have only one problem with this book. I would like it so much better if the author would change its title to something like - A Fundraising Startup Guide: The Nuts and Bolts to Building a Successful Fundraising Profit Center. I realize the author's background is in helping cash-strapped nonprofits that advocate social change, and that this book was initially created to help her help those organizations (and herself). But the book is not merely about nonprofits that advocate social change. And I wish the title would properly reflect what the book covers. 5 stars!

As of July 2008 pollsters have the American public's favorable opinion of Congress at 9%. Every American must take 5 minutes to read the [...] website and then buy this book. It is that simple.

GOOOH is exceptionally well written, although the author states he is not an 'author'. American's are frustrated and this book is going to stir that fustration, yet provide a plan to channel that frustration to successful action. GOOOH is a revolutionary plan to unseat the current members of the House of Representatives in the 2010 election with non-politians who will be vetted by their districts constituents. This book addresses every uncomfortable fiscal and social bancruptcy that we experience daily and more importantly the 2 party Representatives are not addressing.

This book clearly lays out the GOOOH strategy, by smartly contrasting the GOOOH plan to the failures the 2 political parties have been delivering for 60+ years. GOOOH's elegance is it's simplicity. All GOOOH candidates must commit to a legally binding contract that if elected they must align their congressional voting record with their pre-candidate voting position (legally binding). If there are any vote conflicts with their pre-election position, then the Representative must resign or be removed from office. GOOOH will deliver a U.S. House of Representatives that would be accountable to the People.

No matter how you label yourself politically (Liberal, Socialist, Libertarian, Conservative, Moderate ...); GOOOH gives each American a plan and more importantly a call to action. If you consider yourself an American; then you have a duty to yourself, your family and God to read this book and become involved with www.GOOOH.com.

Why GOOOH and why now? God has blessed America for 232 years, however God's blessings are surely running out on America as we continue to allow this treasonous path of not honoring Him as One Nation Under God.

This plan or movement by Tim Cox is one of those things you think to yourself, "why didn't someone do this before?". This book makes you think about all of the important issues that we, as Americans are facing today and what we can do about them. It makes you believe that you don't have to sit on the sidelines any longer but that you can actually do something about the career politicians who are ruining our country. Our United States of America can go back to being 'by the people, and for the people", we just have to act. Great book, great read! Buy this book!

Of couse we want change! Thank you to Tim Cox for doing something about it. In this book, he came up with a very workable plan and tells you how easy it is to follow it. It's not about what your political beliefs are, it's about giving the House back to the people, where it was always intended to be. With this plan, the people, not the politicians, have the platform they need to make the changes in policy that do actually benefit the people, not government or corporations. It's as easy or easier than just doing whatever your currently doing, and it makes so much sense, it is a shame not to read this book, even if politics do not interest you. It's about politics, but it's not political, and you don't have to understand politics to understand this book and learn how to help our country be as it should-in the hands of the people.

Computer scientist Tim Cox has devised a revolutionary plan for putting ordinary patriots like you and me in every seat in the House of Representatives, taking control from the two political parties which currently run our country. He knows his history (the founding fathers are repeatedly cited), he's got his statistics down straight (95% of all elections are won by an incumbent - that's how often the outcome of a race is known), and he's got a plan in Get Out of Our House (GOOOH, which is pronounced simply "go").

His book makes a powerful impact by first outlining his plan at a high level. It is a reasonable call to action, asking all of us to find trustworthy candidates in our everyday life. He outlines the steps for sweeping November with grassroots action, and both the enthusiast and the skeptic can find plenty of details on the website named for the plan's acronym. Only after describing the movement at a high level does Cox make his case for the imperative need to evict the current legislature, sever special interest ties, and obliterate the restrictive two-party system. True to his scientific background, the plan centers on a 100-point candidate questionnaire, to which GOOOH's politicians would be held accountable in office. He has designed a democratic, self-funded system for electing leaders from among the many qualified citizens of our country.

Tim Cox's GOOOH plan has opened my mind, and I'll be passing my copy of the book along to friends and family in the next few months. He has made a compelling case for a revolution which is conducted entirely WITHIN the our Constitutional system.

This is an outstanding book about a process to change the way US Representatives are elected. It will help bring about a way for ordinary Americans to make a positive difference in our government. This is an innovative plan and I encourage all to read it and become involved.

I couldn't put this book down. Every page, every line tells the truth behind the Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian conflict. All wars are complex and difficult to comprehend but Mr. Cohen helps us understand what happened just a few years ago. An accurate and eye-opening account. Some of the atrocities committed are so heinous, so vile as to bring us right back to images of the Third Reich. This is a very important work by a man who knows what he is talking about.

this is the book to read. Its absolutely fantastic. Roger Cohen has a very sharp pen. For me its not just enough to read the book myself, I want to buy other copies and give to friends.

After a few hundred pages, when your ability to read about another Balkans family and their plight begins to wane, Cohen presents some new detail in an individual life that forces you to refocus on how the war crushed people so much like Americans and so very European that the "ancient hatreds" argument becomes sickening. To read about a 16-year-old girl's Tom Cruise poster and her death by shelling is to realize how much the West failed. Compelling, brutal, depressing, and vital reading.

A big, passionate book by the New York Times correspondent, who has tried to pack everything into it: the Bosnian experience of the war (told through several family histories), the Western response and UN policy, and the historical background. Cohen argues well against the `ethnic hatreds' doctrine, but tends to substitute World War II hatreds instead. However, his analysis of UN failure, including evidence drawn from minutes of a high-level meeting held before the fall of Srebrenica, will be of lasting importance

The destruction of Yugoslavia is not the easiest of subjects to fully comprehend. Cohen's informative and excellently written narrative is the best place to start. Cohen does more than just describe the events, he attempts to get beneath the surface to understand the psychology behind the unspeakable atrocities committed during the various wars. The trajedy of Yugoslavia cannot be understood without a recounting of the atrocities committed there during World War II, atrocities that largely went unpunished. All of this and more are recounted by Cohen in his very readable account. It is must reading for anyone interested in recent European history.

I loved this book. Fagone writes in a style that's as engaging and erudite as Malcolm Gladwell and David Foster Wallace, and he brings an excitement and awe to a subject that many might consider too gross to be examined. Now that I know all the players, it's more exciting to watch the Nathan's Famous Hot Dog competition.

HORSEMEN OF THE ESOPHAGUS: COMPETITIVE EATING AND THE BIG FAT AMERICAN DREAM follows the author's journey to twenty-seven eating contests on two continents, from the U.S. to Japan, as he interviews some of the world's top eating champions and surveys contests, subcultures, and oddities of the food world. Any food fan will relish these fun vignettes of promoters, events, and eaters alike, wrapped n chapters of mouth-watering - and sometimes horrifying - descriptions of food and gluttons alike.

Diane C. Donovan
California Bookwatch

Competitive eating has to be one of the signs of the collapse of American culture. Or, is it? For one year Jason Fagone explores the cesspool of commercial gluttony and comes back with a surprising, and fulfilling story.

Sure, this book is about eating, but it's also a satisfying quest, like a good road movie. Jason Fagone takes us around the world to see best and the worst of this offbeat activity -- the worst is truly, deeply upsetting -- and to search for meaning in all those HDBs (hot dogs and buns). Often funny, sometimes profane, never boring, this book is a thoughtful work of serious journalism and great storytelling.

Ok, up front, let me say that I think that competitive eating is fairly weird and gross. This book only marginally shifted my idea that the whole thing is a bit of a freak show. I didn't think I'd like this book. My sister gave me this book because she has an unnatural fixation with hot dogs and spends way too much time in bookstores cruising the new release aisle. I am unfamiliar with this writer, as I guess it's his first book. But he has a strong voice, and an engaging way of explaining the most incredulous situations as very matter of fact. I sort of thought it as a more entertaining variation on "Fast Food Nation."

Frankly, some of the details are just weird or hysterical (dunking hot dogs in liquid so that they go down easier - yuck) and yet it's all nicely detailed and believable. One thing that is not evident from the cover is that the story is not just of the business of competitive eating, which I knew nothing about and which he covers well, but of America's huge appetites for everything. I found this aspect of the book surprisingly thought provoking. I say surprisingly, because I really just thought it would be about obese guys eating hot dogs. But it actually made me really think about these people, and why they do this to themselves, and more importantly, why we as a country do it - we just consume, consume, consume.

It's one of the few books that I've read in a few years where I think the title doesn't explain the book well, and a different one might have lent itself better to the actual material inside.

A great book by a great attorney and even better human being. He tells it like it is but doesn't forget to make you laugh. You've got to read this book!

This book should be mandatory reading for criminal defense attorneys. It gets your head, your heart, and your ego in the right place. A light, quick and engaging read, it will crack you up again and again at the same time as imparting much insight. And then there's the chapter on the Roger Ligon case, the prep and trial of which is a model of unstinting hard work, commitment and brilliance by attorney Sherman. And it's cheap, you should buy a bunch of copies so you can hand them out the next time someone asks, "How can you defend those people?!"

I've often asked myself "how can that lawyer defend that person". I guess sometimes I still wonder, but in our wonderful country every person has the right to be represented/defended in court. Sort of reminds me of hate the sin but love the sinner . . Can't love the sinner, but can accept the fact that he has the right to good legal counsel.

Mickey Sherman, a renowned defense attorney, defends his profession against the rash of stereotypes held by the general public, usually using a heavy does of his good -- and wacky -- sense of humor in the process.

And, it's not just defending his profession. He looks at the practice of criminal law in general. This isn't a nuts-and-bolts, or a tell-all, just a description of how defense lawyers, judges, prosecutors and cops are all people -- and how those who are best people are usually the best in their line of work.

Filled with great anecdotes from an attorney who truly doesn't take himself too seriously, Mickey Sherman explains not only how he can defend "those guys," but, how you should be glad people like him defend "those guys."

Hysterically Entertaining

Enchanted by the quagmires, challenges, and events that surround the lives of attorneys, media commentators, and entertainers?

Interested in the inside scoop on high profile cases, courtroom dramas, actors, players, and the personal boundaries that attorney's often face?

Want to read something that will make you laugh out loud, get teary eyed, stir your nerves, rock your views, and motivate you to live each day as you see fit?

If your answers are yes - then "How Can You Defend Those People" is a MUST READ! It's rare to find a book where readers are so moved by one man's life experiences! Mickey Sherman's accounts are so vividly cast and frankly depicted that they leave you yearning for more and wondering how all these interesting events could possibly have happened to one person! From Michael Skakel, OJ Simpson, Scott Peterson, Martha Stewart, the Menedez brothers ... to the quite unknown yet poignant story of Roger Ligon ... this book is well-written, exciting, and hysterically entertaining!

We have a myth in this country, propagated perhaps by an exaggerated faith in the nature of our ineluctable liberties, and our much vaunted "free press." The myth says that the truth is something that has natural buoyancy, and that given the slightest opportunity it will rise of its own accord. But sometimes painful truths are suppressed by the media to preserve the comfort level of the status quo, and strenuous efforts by courageous people are required to bring it forward into the light. Rodney Hurst's powerful new book, It was never just about a Hot Dog and a Coke focuses on just such a struggle: the struggle to reveal the truth about the events that led to a dark and shameful moment in American history, and a transformation of how America viewed segregation in the south.

On August 27th of 1960, more than two hundred white segregationists armed with axe handles and baseball bats attacked 35 unarmed black teenage members of the Jacksonville Youth Council NAACP as they sat peacefully at a Woolworth's lunch counter in downtown Jacksonville, Florida. This horrific and shameful attack, designed to prevent black people from being seated and served, received virtually no coverage from the major media in the Jacksonville area, and only surfaced in the national news by virtue of the strenuous efforts of the local NAACP, black news papers and the determination of the black community. Jacksonville police did nothing to prevent the attack, and in fact, encouraged it. The attack triggered serious violence between whites and blacks in the Jacksonville area, and came close to triggering serious armed conflict. One of Hurt's themes is that irrational hatred and prejudice can only be preserved in social institutions when vital facts are suppressed, and ignorance is preserved. Newspapers and other media of the white community in Jacksonville, could have reported the truth about the attack, what lead up to it, and what followed it. They could have tried to defend what happened from a segregationist point of view. Instead through neglect and deliberate effort, they tried to suppress and distort news about the entire sequence of events.

Although Mr. Hurst, now in his sixties, was the sixteen-year old leader of the young people involved in the famous sit in, he makes his extraordinarily convincing case not as an angry propagandist, but as a thoughtful historian. He felt the need to write this book from the "inside" perspective because, as he successfully argues, the best local coverage at the time came from black newspapers that were not read outside that community. The local white papers covered these events minimally, in a distorted fashion, or not at all. In addition the national press--and many of the books written on the subject since those days--simply got the facts wrong. What Hurst provides in a way that has not been revealed before is the full social and cultural context in which these events unfolded.

The Jacksonville of 1960 was a profoundly segregated one, and Hurst paints a powerful and fascinating sketch of the lives of black people in that segregated reality. Denied access to many white institutions, black people had their own theaters, their own barbershops, beauty shops, haberdasheries, shoe stores, and newspapers. As the picture of that reality emerges, Hurst makes a powerful case (based on facts, not rhetorical assertions) that the preservation of segregation was based on deep rooted lies. Schools were much more poorly funded than white schools, undermining the claim that blacks schools were separate but equal. Ironically, many of the black schools were names after Confederate generals whose names were then impressed on books, documents, and the cement of the institutions themselves. In one case, a school was actually named after the Confederate General who founded the KKK! White church audiences in Jacksonville were often treated to sermons in which biblical passages were cited to justify the morality of segregationist policies. Hurst also cited many instances in which opportunities were curtailed for talented young people, including some remarkable athletes whose rise was impeded because of their color.

For young Hurst, the first step toward reclaiming his history was through a wonderful set of adult role models in the community, including series of remarkable teachers in his high school who taught students to value themselves and take pride in their community. He mentions many of them fondly in the book--in particular, his history teacher, Rutledge Henry Pearson, who laid the prescribed text aside and taught students the history of black people, locally and nationally. In the process Pearson helped students develop a sense of esteem and self-value that lead to an understanding of the oppressive nature of the segregated system under which they lived. EDUCATION was the tool of self awareness, and teachers like Pearson helped set students on the path to recognizing their condition. Other adult leaders in the local NAACP helped members of the Jacksonville youth Council of the NAACP decide that something needed to be done to change that condition. That decision, arrived at by the students themselves, led to the peaceful sit-in at a Woolworth's lunch counter, and triggered a terrifying confrontation with the white community.

Hurst's account of what unfolded is full of chilling and fascinating moments. We hear how weapons were gathered for the attack as police looked the other way. We hear accounts of how one local paper tried to persuade a wire service not to report the unfolding story for national coverage. (The wire service refused). We are made cognizant of the astounding courage of the black students who were willing to be physically beaten to stand up for their rights. We witness the bravery of a remarkable young white man, Richard Parker, who joined the sit-in, and had to be rescued from a white mob by young members of a black gang called the "boomerangs."

Over time, American and world opinion has recognized the heroism of the brave teenagers who challenged segregation and were beaten for it. The sit-ins have even been honored by a commemorative stamp. As Mr. Hurst explains, the demonstrations were about "human dignity and respect. Lunch counters were just visible and convenient venues to attack racial discrimination."

Whether you are black or white it is hard to read this book without experiencing grief, horror and dismay over these events which happened only a few short decades ago. WingSpan Press deserves kudos for printing it--but this book should have been published by a major press. (Any university press in Florida, for example would have been enhanced and honored by printing it.) It is my hope that in the future, historians will look to this excellent little book to get the inside story of what really happened at a sit-in at a white lunchroom in Jacksonville in 1960. What lead to it--and what followed. There is history to be ashamed of here--but also heroes to be proud of. This is a book that every American who cares about truth and history should read and appreciate.

Quoting from the back cover:

"On August 27, 1960, more than 200 whites with ax handles and baseball bats attacked members of the Jacksonville Youth Council NAACP in downtown Jacksonville who were sitting in at white lunch counters protesting racism and segregation. Referred to as Ax Handle Saturday, It was never about a hot dog and a Coke chronicles the racial and political climate of Jacksonville, Florida in the late fifties, the events leading up to that infamous day, and the aftermath."

This informative memoir is about a dangerous time. The events are a part of our history, and through Rodney's story we learn more about the people and groups involved and the courage it took to sit. The book is well-written and well-edited. Thanks, Rodney, for taking the time.

Kaye Trout
Reviewer

The title, "It was never about a hot dog and a Coke!" was enough to make me want to read this book. I had to know more.

There are numerous historical characters from the civil rights movement in this book; some many may not have heard of. You will find them, and the time frame interesting; I did.

Mr. Hurst was born in Jacksonville, Florida; in 1944. He lived through the time of segregation and activists; being recognized as an activist, and member of the Jacksonville Youth Council NAACP. Mr. Hurst later became president of the Jacksonville Youth Council NAACP. He has been married to his wife Ann for forty-one years. They have two sons, and two granddaughters.

Although this is a book about the civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's in Jacksonville, there is much more to this story; as seen through the eyes of a person that was there and witnessed Ax Handle Saturday. As a reader, you'll get a perspective of truth about living in that era from one who did. I would recommend this book for anyone interested in the civil rights movement and segregation that used to be in the southern states.

Reviewed by William Phenn for Reader Views (4/08)

A Jacksonville, Florida former councilman Rodney Hurst Sr. is a grandfather, father of two sons and has been a loving husband for over forty-one years. The inspiration for his book began when he was eleven-years-old and was introduced to his first youth group.

Joining a youth group at the age of eleven would be uneventful to an average child, but for Rodney; it was the beginning of an adventure. Who would have thought that this would be the beginning of a long road? This road caused him pain, sorrow and depression, but yet gave him the greatest joy of his life, freedom. In a time of "White only" restaurants, "White and Colored" restrooms, Rodney grew to become a notable activist for the struggles of his people. From his first sit-in at the "Woolworths Department Store," to his election as Councilman for the city of Jacksonville, Florida; the book does a wonderful job of tracing Rodney's plight. Tracing his exploits every step of the way, it kept you glued to the pages.

With all the adventure of a war novel, the book takes you to all the places history was made. It takes you to the front lines, the battles and the victories of the marches and the sit-ins. With such good attention to actual events and the truth of what took place, this book makes you one with the protestors. You become a part of the movement and feel what they were feeling.

I enjoyed "It was never about a hot dog and a Coke" and thought it was well-written and very nicely presented. The quality of the print, the front and back cover art and the reprints of historic pictures; all made for an interesting read. This historic 191-page book is a fast and informative read and I gave it my well-deserved A, and recommend it to the general audience.

Reviewed by Kam Aures for RebeccasReads (5/08)

"It was never about a hot dog and a Coke!" is author Rodney L. Hurst's first-hand account of the sit-ins in Jacksonville, Florida in the 1960s. Throughout his lifetime Hurst has been a very active and influential member of the Jacksonville community. He has served on the Jacksonville City Council. He was the first African-American to be a TV co-host in Jacksonville. He was the Executive Director of Florida's Construction Industry Licensing Board. Besides these and other accomplishments, the one that this book centers around is the time period in which he was involved with the Jacksonville Youth Council NAACP. He joined at age 11 and became President of the group at age 15.

During this era everything was segregated. There were restrooms specifically designated for "Coloreds" and ones for "Whites." There was even s a separate section of The Florida Times-Union newspaper that had a black star at the top and was "News For and About the Colored People of Jacksonville." This section of the paper was not included in home deliveries to white households so white people of the time knew little about the achievements and news in the black community. Among other areas, this segregation also applied to the educational system and to lunch counters in department stores, which is the main focus of Hurst's book. As President of the Jacksonville Youth council NAACP group he played an influential role in leading the sit-ins at these lunch counters in the 1960s in a protest of segregation and racism. As the title of the book implies, these sit-ins were not "about a hot dog and a Coke," they were about "...human dignity and respect. Lunch counters were just visible and convenient vestiges to attack racial discriminations."

Although the sit-ins were peaceful demonstrations, the reactions by the white community were not always so peaceful. There was one incident that was dubbed "Ax Handle Saturday" that occurred on August 27th, 1960 in which mobs of white people attacked black shoppers with ax sticks and baseball bats.

"It was ever about a hot dog and a Coke!" is a look at the events by someone who truly lived and breathed them. It is a first-hand look at the civil rights movement of that era that has not become misconstrued by going through numerous sources. Throughout the book are numerous pictures of the people involved and also some of the few pictures of the events that took place. One of the pictures included is a disturbing one taken on "Ax Handle Saturday" which features an innocent bystander splattered in blood from being attacked. These pictures give you a true sense of just how horrific the events were that took place.

I lived in Jacksonville for a short period of time so the references to certain streets were familiar to me but most of the history of the black community in that area was not at all. I feel like I learned a lot by reading Hurst's book, "It was never about a hot dog and a Coke!," and I think it would be a wonderful addition to the required reading list of any history class or to anyone who wants to educate themselves of the events that occurred in America's past.

My brief research before the purchase of this book lead me to believe, that this is currently (July 2008) the best book on jQuery. After getting started with the book, I still think that's the case. Except if I consider online docs and tutorials as well. Online tutorials benefit jQuery from the fact that you can really try out and see what's happening. Sure you could download the code or type it down from the book, but the fact is that I ended up learning more about jQuery following interactive online tutorials than from reading the book.
Usually, I prefer reading a book on the couch instead of on a computer screen, but that's not how you learn jQuery. You have to try it. You have to play with it. And if you have to sit in front of your PC or Mac anyway, you might as well just follow an online tutorial.

I rarely write reviews for the books I read, but with this one a review isn't that hard. First and foremost, this book assumes that you already have some solid knowledge on web design (CSS, HTML, and Javascript). There is a quick chapter on javascript in the appendix that helps but it's more of a friendly reminder of javascript concepts that anything else. It's also good to have an understanding of some of the more advanced CSS selectors that are in the CSS3 specification. This isn't a requirement but you'll get a bit more out of it if you do. jQuery has some very powerful ways of selecting elements and you can use some of the CSS3 selector statements even if the browser doesn't support it. Very cool stuff! The authors do a great job of explaining things with detailed code and real-world examples (which you can download and run yourself if you wish to follow along). They also do a good job of breaking everything down into a linear fashion that is easy to absorb and don't get ahead of themselves all that often. All in all, this is probably one of the best web development/design related books I've read in a while. I haven't quite finished yet but the half I have read is reqlly well written. I already feel like I have a firm grasp of the basic concepts of jQuery and could probably start using it a bit. Bravo to the authors for writing a solid book on jQuery!

I have solid JavaScript skills and plenty of experience, but at first I wasn't feeling 100% comfortable using jQuery; I was able to be productive very quickly, but failed to feel at home using it. This book was exactly what I was looking for. jQuery has its own way to approach many problems and, in my case, I almost had to "unlearn" certain habits and embrace the idiomatic alternatives offered by the library. jQuery in Action helped me a lot in the process, saved me some time and made the whole learning process much more enjoyable. I wish there was more space dedicated to ui.jQuery, but I understand that's a topic worth a dedicated book.

I found this book to be a great resource for learning about jQuery. I was able to apply what I learned right away.

This is just an excellent book all around. It's well-written. No BS to wade through (just the stuff you need to get going with jQuery). It has excellent online tools to download so you can really get into jQuery and how it works (they call it a Lab page -- it's a set of HTML pages that you download and use to test tasks or theories in jQuery).

I haven't read too many books solely on Ajax frameworks but I cannot recommend this one enough. You'll be up and running with jQuery faster than you can imagine.

Isaiah Berlin is one of the most important philosophers of liberty and freedom in the 20th century.

He is a liberal in the old sense of the word (the 19th century sense). His views on liberty and freedom have shaped many thinkers especially those that came out of the Chicago school. His writings were against "totalitarian" systems in which he had some experience with. He surveys the theoretical meanings of what "liberty" is and provides his own constructs.

He discusses positive and negative senses of liberty.

His views have been cited by Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer in Breyer's most recent book, Active Liberty: Interpreting Our Democratic Constitution. It is not clear whether Berlin would support Justice Breyer's extension of his views, but I believe Justice Breyer was seeking to define his own "Active Liberty" concept by using the positive aspect of liberty discussed by Berlin.

Isaiah Berlin is a very important 20th century philosopher (a political philosopher or political scientist as well) and this is a very important book consisting of his essays. I highly recommend it.

Liberty is a very precious and rare quality of a living condition.
As I. Berlin states, `The periods and societies in which civil liberties were respected, and variety of opinion and faith tolerated, have been very few and far between, oases in the desert of human uniformity, intolerance and oppression.'

I. Berlin explains clearly that liberty has two faces: a positive and a negative one.
Positive liberty is the answer to the question: who controls? Am I my own master?
Negative liberty circumscribes the area wherein a third person can prevent anybody to make a free choice.
On these bases, a free society can be organized, with 1) absolute rights (not absolute powers) and 2) frontiers, defined in terms of rules, within which men should be inviolable.
For the author, freedom is not an end, but a means to create `room for personal ends', for happiness. He rightly criticizes E. Fromm: freedom is the opportunity to act, not action itself.

Philosophically, freedom has been ferociously contested by the determinists, the defenders of `historical inevitability' (Hegel, Marx, Bacon, Fourier, Comte). The author remarks judiciously that if the world is ruled by determinism, nobody is responsible: there is no free will, no morality, and no justice. Individual choice is an illusion. Determinism represents the world as a prison.
A more brutal kind of determinism is presented by those who believe that there is a final answer, a unique goal, a central principle that governs our life. This principle and its executioners provoked barbarous consequences.

Isaiah Berlin's reflections on liberty are profound and still very actual.
Not to be missed.

Berlin's considerable reputation rests largely on his essays. In his chosen areas of political philosophy and intellectual history, he produced no major systematic works. His essays, particularly those in the history of ideas, are long, insightful, and informed by impressive breadth of knowledge and a humane temperament. He was a consistently excellent and sometimes elegant writer. Of all his essays, he felt his most substantial work was the writings on Liberty collected in this volume. The core of this book is the Four Essays on Liberty, which appeared originally as a book of that title about 40 years ago.
How good are these essays? They were written originally in the late 1940s through late 1950s and were directed, at least in part, at issues that preoccupied British intellectuals of that period. The backdrop was the Cold War, and debates about the justification of socialist ideals and the nature of socialism. Most of these essays have not worn well. I don't think there is much original or profound in either the first or last essays of the four; Political Ideas in the 20th Century, and John Stuart Mill and the Ends of Life. I suspect most critical readers will find the essay entitled Historical Inevitability to be fairly pedestrian. This leaves the most celebrated of these essays, Two Concepts of Liberty. It is on this essay and some of his best historical studies that Berlin's reputation rests.
In Two Concepts, Berlin developed his famous distinction between "negative" and "positive" concepts of liberty. He particularly focused on how a certain rationalist conception of "positive" liberty can become, though often via a tortuous route, a justification for attacks on "negative" liberty and assault basic human rights. Berlin argues that this conception of "positive" liberty leads to the great crimes of the 20th century. This leads to an eloquent plea for some form of pluralism in regard to ultimate human goals. Berlin develops this argument brilliantly and with a self-assured writing style that is a pleasure to read.
But how good is his argument? As he himself points out, there are circumstances underwhich the distinction between "negative" and "positive" liberty can be cloudy, casting doubt on the utility and reality of this distinction. He is incorrect in assigning blame for all the terrible crimes of the 20th century to the rationalist view of "positive" liberty. This is certainly a fair criticism with respect to Marxism and the great crimes of Marxist states. But does it apply to Fascism and violent nationalism? These movements were marked by wholesale rejection of rationalism and exaltation of emotion, quite different from what he describes as the rationalist wellspring of all the crimes of the 20th century.
Berlin is an interesting and thought provoking essayist but not a major figure in political thought or intellectual history.

I read this book for a graduate class in Philosophy. Berlin in the book is talking about different understandings on liberty. How do liberals think about liberty? Not only liberals think about liberty, many isms do, there are many different ways to think about liberty. Berlin makes a few distinctions on liberty. In "Two Concepts of Liberty," he distinguishes between political liberty and individual Liberty. Political Liberty, democratic liberty having a vote and participating, like in Greek city-state. No limit on power of the government over any aspect of citizen's life, but a citizen has some control over government through his vote. Not all are citizens, women, slaves, etc. Liberals are interested in individual liberty; choose the activities they want to do. A tension between Political Liberty and Individual Liberty. Political Liberty implies that there is majority rule through the vote. Maybe a majority won't impose on people, but that can change through the majority vote. If you have a system that you set up to insure certain individual rights like the U.S. does you protect certain liberties like the 1st amendment to free speech. These rights are taken away from voting on by the majority and to change them you need a super majority. This takes away Political Liberty, so there is that antagonism between both liberties. Unless you are an anarchist, there are certain functions and liberties that must be given up to the government. The more individual freedoms you keep from government the less value Political Liberty has to citizens the fewer things we get to decide.

The famous concepts Berlin distinguishes between are Positive Liberty and Negative Liberty. 1. Positive Liberty means self-control over your own life. 2. Negative liberty means you are free from interference from other people. Other people can't force you to do something. Positive liberty is self-mastery, self-control. Negative liberty means you are free from interference from other people. Others can't compel you to act in a way you don't want to act. At first these sound like two sides of the same coin. What Berlin points out historically is that people who believe in Positive Liberty have taken it in a very different direction than those that believe in Negative Liberty. What they (Positive Liberty adherents) have done is to infer that from each person you can distinguish between what he or she thinks he or she wants, and what his or her better self or true self would want. Therefore, there is this idea that we all might have certain desires that we want but that they are not expressive of our real essence. An obvious case is an addict who has some part of them that really don't want the drug. Even though they put all their time and energy in getting the drug it might be tempting to think that they really don't want the drug. Once they got the distinction between ordinary desires that you are aware of and the desires that you truly want, then the Positive Liberty people are tempted to say that for someone to really have charge of their life to really have liberty than we have to make sure that they are doing what their true self wants to do, not the self that they are consciously aware of, not the self not the desires that seem to them to be strongest. But what the angels of their better nature want, that's real freedom. Even when the person is protesting that that isn't what they want, if you are making them do what their true self wants really then you are making them do good. Kant would be a supporter of this view.

We have two aspects of human nature. The numeral self and nominal self. The numeral self is our true self and is the basis of morality this is why we are morally obligated to do things because our true self accepts a certain kind of law and imposes it on us. We are obligated to obey it because it is a law our true self chooses even though we may not be consciously aware of it, we may have all kinds of desires pulling us in different directions. We are obligated to do it because it is what our true self chooses. Rousseau is very much in this tradition. He says people can be forced to be free. Historically, this is the direction that many people who believe in Positive Liberty go in.

The Negative liberty people tend to say that other people don't tell them what to do. They could have gone the same route thinking about two kinds of selves, and they could say negative liberty is when your lower self doesn't tell your higher self what to do, but that historically hasn't happened. That is not the kind of liberty they have been thinking about. Liberals generally belong to this kind of negative liberty position. The kind of liberty liberals tend to care about is freedom from other individuals or the government. Free to the extent no one tells you what to do, none of this true self-stuff. You are free if other people can't stop you from doing what you want to do. All the different liberals are going to believe that people should have a significant amount of this kind of (negative), liberty. All the critics of liberalism are not all going to want to take all this kind of liberty away, but they are going to definitely say that liberty is not as important as the liberals think it is and that it ought to be restricted in some significant ways.

Berlin says, once you see how the Positive Liberty idea was developed, it turns out not to have the same kind of tension with Political Liberty that Negative Liberty does. Since, you could always have the view what peoples true selves want can be discovered by a kind of democratic process, so that what the majority votes for is what everyone wants, even the minority, they just didn't really know what they wanted. We all really want what is best for our community, as Rousseau would say.

Recommended reading for anyone interested in philosophy, political science, and history.

Henry Hardy the devoted student and editor of the work of Isaiah Berlin has reedited and expanded Berlin's on Liberty. These essays are at the heart of Berlin's liberal political philsophy. And their most well- known conception is the distinction between 'negative and positive liberty'.
This is the way Wikipedia makes the distinction.

"He defined negative liberty as the absence of constraints on, or interference with, agents' possible action. I am more "negatively free" to the extent that fewer opportunities for possible action are foreclosed or interfered with. Positive liberty he associated with the idea of self-mastery, or the capacity to determine oneself, to be in control of one's destiny. While Berlin granted that both concepts of liberty represent valid human ideals, he believed that as a matter of history, the positive concept of liberty has proven more susceptible to political abuse. He argued that under the influence of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Immanuel Kant and G.W.F. Hegel (all committed to the positive concept of liberty), European political thinkers were frequently tempted to equate liberty with forms of political discipline or constraint. This became politically dangerous when the relevant ideals of positive liberty were, in the course of the 19th century, used to defend ideals of national self-determination, imperatives of democratic self-government, and the communist notion of humanity collectively asserting rational control over its own destiny. In this way of thinking, Berlin contended, demands for freedom paradoxically become demands for forms of collective control and discipline - those deemed necessary for the "self-mastery" or self-determination of nations, classes, democratic communities, and perhaps of humanity as a whole. There is thus an elective affinity, for Berlin, between positive liberty and political totalitarianism."

Another of Berlin's major essays in this work deals with the conception of 'Historical Inevitability'. Here he is most fierce in his critique of Marxism with its posited inevitable stages of history. Something of a great man himself, Berlin was a strong champion of the idea that great individuals shape human events, and introduce novel transformations of reality.

A third center of Berlin's thought has to do with his 'pluralism' his sense of the differing ideals and values different societies have. His pluralism however is what he called an 'objective pluralism' as he thought that there are certain values such as 'individual liberty' which should prevail in all societies.

Ultimately though he claimed that both for the individual and for society 'ideal ends' often conflict, and that perfect realization in action, is therefore impossible. Life for Berlin moral decision for Berlin thus has a tragic element of incompleteness and contradiction.
In this sense of our limitation deriving from our own ideal ends and actions, Berlin 's thought ultimately corresponds to arguments concerning the limitations of Mind which have been made in modern thought regard to a wide variety of other areas of human inquiry, from theology to mathematics.