Taxes Books

Mr. Beito's book covers a very important precedent for the upcoming world depression -- namely public Tax Revolt.
However, the author states that the movement was a failure. His views are aptly challenged at http://mises dot org [slash] journals/jls/15_3/15_3_4 dot pdf. I suggest that you download that pdf file to compare to the book when you buy it.

This text came in the expected condition for a used book. However the text is VERY small and difficult to read. It is also, what I would deam "higher level reading". So buyer beware, if you are not into upper level reading,, this is not the guide for you.

This is a book written by a tax lawyer. The opinions appear to
be somewhat prejudiced and slanted to a Republican or anti-liberal
point of view. In it he is openly against to both Bill Clinton and Hilary
at the date of 1995.
From a purely economic point of view the income tax doesn't make sense
as it is friction to the rolling of the financial ball.
No where does he state that income tax as a graduated tax was used to
redistribute wealth in a socialistic scheme of things popular among
liberal of the early 20th century. He says very little about racial discrimination, welfare or the use of federal money to
even old wrongs and make society more equitable.
He is more interested in equity and money than is the uses that it might be made of in social programs.
I think that we have to be very careful about the reasoning of such men.
He would say that defense spending is good because it feeds the economy,
but any help for the poor is bad because it leads to no new profits.
When the orphan Oliver asks for "More", this Oliver says no.
And probably would cut off what is being spent on social programs as well.
The whole idea of a graduated income tax is to somewhat control the greed and self interest of such successful men at law.

The book is a useful analysis of very agressive tactics that sometimes cross over the legal line...I understand the author later spent some time in Jail. It is also nearly 2 decades since this book came to print, so many of the tactics are dated and of little or no use.

I'm sure that this book provides comfort for the credulous and non-analytical thinkers who want to be reassured about authoritarian opinions that they currently have, but for inquisitive readers, the book falls apart.

The authors' premise is that all rights cost money to enforce, and therefore rights are a good purchased by society for the individual, and therefore are in the same class as entitlements. The policy prescriptions that flow from this are two-fold: (1) entitlement spending ( a "right" to housing, top-notch medical care, etc., even if one never raises a finger to do a day of work) are rights that may not be denied, and would only ever want to be denied by selfish rightists; (2) traditional rights (free speech, free association, etc.) are created by society, and enforced by society, therefore have costs, and may be constrained in the interests of economy.

Most transparent sectarian political screeds at least resort to the rhetorical fallacy of argument from authority: basing an argument on the fact that Jefferson, or Madison, said it first. These authors don't even do the work to commit that fallacy; they merely assert their opinions.

An example: they assert that the right to not to have property arbitrarilly confiscated is granted by the government (as opposed to existing before the government, and continuiing under it), and that the government must thus fund anti-corruption investigators and judges in order to grant this right. They entirely miss the fact that the right under question would not even be under fire if it were not for an early government policy of supporting confiscation. This realization transforms their false argument about rights into the more factually correct statement that "if the government implements one flawed program, then it follows that we may need yet another program to keep the first in check".

The fact that perhaps both programs could be trashed is not even considered.

All in all, this book is a [...] piece from two authors unwilling to argue their point on either a philosophical or utilitarian basis, and instead depend on unsupported assertions and illogical thinking.

"How does capitalism affect liberty?

Private property is in many ways like a private form of state. The owner determines what goes on within the area he or she "owns," and therefore exercises a monopoly of power over it. When power is exercised over one's self, it is a source of freedom, but under capitalism it is a source of coercive authority. As Bob Black points out in The Abolition of Work:

"The liberals and conservatives and Libertarians who lament totalitarianism are phoneys and hypocrites. . . You find the same sort of hierarchy and discipline in an office or factory as you do in a prison or a monastery. . . A worker is a part-time slave. The boss says when to show up, when to leave, and what to do in the meantime. He tells you how much work to do and how fast. He is free to carry his control to humiliating extremes, regulating, if he feels like it, the clothes you wear or how often you go to the bathroom. With a few exceptions he can fire you for any reason, or no reason. He has you spied on by snitches and supervisors, he amasses a dossier on every employee. Talking back is called 'insubordination,' just as if a worker is a naughty child, and it not only gets you fired, it disqualifies you for unemployment compensation. . .The demeaning system of domination I've described rules over half the waking hours of a majority of women and the vast majority of men for decades, for most of their lifespans. For certain purposes it's not too misleading to call our system democracy or capitalism or -- better still -- industrialism, but its real names are factory fascism and office oligarchy. Anybody who says these people are 'free' is lying or stupid."

Unlike a company, the democratic state can be influenced by its citizens, who are able to act in ways that limit (to some extent) the power of the ruling elite to be "left alone" to enjoy their power. As a result, the wealthy hate the democratic aspects of the state, and its ordinary citizens, as potential threats to their power. This "problem" was noted by Alexis de Tocqueville in early 19th-century America:

"It is easy to perceive that the wealthy members of the community entertain a hearty distaste to the democratic institutions of their country. The populace is at once the object of their scorn and their fears."

These fears have not changed, nor has the contempt for democratic ideas. To quote one US Corporate Executive, "one man, one vote will result in the eventual failure of democracy as we know it." {L. Silk and D. Vogel, Ethics and Profits: The Crisis of Confidence in American Business, pp. 189f}

This contempt for democracy does not mean that capitalists are anti-state. Far from it. As previously noted, capitalists depend on the state. This is because "[classical] Liberalism, is in theory a kind of anarchy without socialism, and therefore is simply a lie, for freedom is not possible without equality. . .The criticism liberals direct at government consists only of wanting to deprive it some of its functions and to call upon the capitalists to fight it out amongst themselves, but it cannot attack the repressive functions which are of its essence: for without the gendarme the property owner could not exist." {Errico Malatesta, Anarchy, p. 46}.

Capitalists call upon and support the state when it acts in their interests and when it supports their authority and power. The "conflict" between state and capital is like two gangsters fighting over the proceeds of a robbery: they will squabble over the loot and who has more power in the gang, but they need each other to defend their "property" against those from whom they stole it.

The statist nature of private property can be seen in "Libertarian" (i.e. minarchist, or "classical" liberal) works representing the extremes of laissez-faire capitalism:

$Qf one starts a private town, on land whose acquisition did not and does not violate the Lockean proviso [of non-aggression], persons who chose to move there or later remain there would have no right to a say in how the town was run, unless it was granted to them by the decision procedures for the town which the owner had established" {Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia, p. 270}

This is voluntary feudalism, nothing more. Of course, it can be claimed that "market forces" will result in the most liberal owners being the most successful, but a nice master is still a master. To paraphrase Tolstoy, "the liberal capitalist is like a kind donkey owner. He will do everything for the donkey -- care for it, feed it, wash it. Everything except get off its back!" And as Bob Black notes, "Some people giving orders and others obeying them: this is the essence of servitude. . . . {F}reedom means more than the right to change masters." {The Libertarian as Conservative}. That supporters of capitalism often claim that this "right" to change masters is the essence of "freedom" is a telling indictment of the capitalist notion of "liberty."

The authors present a well written view of how the exercise of individual rights cost money if those rights are to be accomplished reasonably and in the abscence of armed force on the part of the individual. A number of previous reviewers have sanctimoniously and self righteously assumed for the book objectives far beyound its meager size and intent. I suspect they are the usual (1) "no gummint is good gummint" and (2) "no taxes is good taxes" types who feel that God, or something, made them exempt from cooperating with other people - a general description of so-called libertarians and far-right conservatives. In other words, their rights are paramount and they have no responsibilities or accountability. That road appears by magical thinking, as did garbage delivery and the sheriff's department in their view. They don't owe anyone anything for any reason, and they will shoot you to prove it. Sounds like they did not get socialized in K-12. Read the book for its intent, which is to object to "no gummint and taxes" movement in the US over the past decades which has brought us a really sorry pass and nearly into a form of fascism light. Holmes and Sunstein have done a great service here by raising substantive counter arguments to the "screw you, I got mine" groups in this era.

While it wasn't the most exciting book I've read, "The Cost of Rights" was a refreshing twist on the taxes issue. It challenged opponents of the current tax system or any tax system to think critically on the subject. I felt that Holmes' and Sunstein's approach was more effective than a listing of statistics. Rather than explaining economic reasons for taxes, they brought it to a level that related more to readers. Everyone has a reason to be interested in the preservation of his or her own rights. Without taxes for government support, we could not be guaranteed equal representation before the law. Taxes pay for law enforcement and other government services that are vital to our liberty. Without taxes, no one would every truly own property. Taxes serve as the standard for American's to exist and be governed by. They do not discern our morals, but instead preserve our rights. In "The Cost of Rights", the case for taxes was presented in such a way that I couldn't see liberty without some sort of tax system.

As the authors say at some passage in the text, biblically simple ideas can make a profound difference. They say this when it comes to stress the importance of values like truth, honesty and integrity. We could also say the same about "loving your neighbor as yourself", the core of equality and reciprocity. This book is an example of how you can do much by sticking to simple assumptions. I must say that I appreciate Sunstein and Holmes a lot, and try to read all that thy write.

Steven Holmes and Cass Sunstein have made a strong case, in this and their other writings, that while we can appreciate and defend free enterprise, private property, private media, free exercise of religion, and so on, we still need a strong State to impose liberal constraints on private power.

In fact, that's what classical social contract theory is all about. The State is created by a social contract to protect individuals from one another, since the state of nature is a state of war between men, in which man is a wolf to other man.
Historically, the liberal revolutions were fought against not only absolute monarchs, but also against authoritarian churches, catholic and protestant, that used State power as a secular arm ("braccio seculare") to impose their own dogmas to believers and non believers, thus excercising an undue "power over the hearts of man" (Baruch Spinoza).

While we should advocate a strong marketplace of ideas (including religious ones), and while we should appreciate religion contribution to civic virtues, we still have to protect our liberal institutions from ilegitimate attempts to get these institutions under the control of iliberal and anti-liberal religious dogmas that want to fight equal religious liberty for all citizens and groups alike, believers and non-believers, men and women, adults and children, black and white, gay and straight. That's what separation of religious communities and State is all about.

When we think of Enron, for instance, we realize that corporations can be a Leviathan to many defenseless citizens, by totally destroying their life savings and prospects, with profound psicological consequences. That's plain evil. More, we realize that some already rich man will evade their duties of citizenship and civility (v.g. the duty of paying taxes) to get even more rich.

I am in favor of a strong market economy. It allows for human creativity, it creates wealth, it creates habits of work, trust and tolerance, it decentralizes authority, and by doing this it can further human rights.

But I think that only a robust liberal State, with strong legislative, administrative and judicial branches, can counter the threat to liberty, security and well being that some corporations here and there may represent. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, as Lord Acton said. Only a strong liberal State can make, market economy both possible and credible.

Originally liberals are defenders of the State, an institution tipical of a civilized society. John Locke is the main example here. The liberal State is a mark of rationalization and civilization, as german philosopher G.F. Hegel would put it. That's why Oliver Wendell Holmes used to say that taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society. I totally agree with that. Liberal thought fears both authoritarian states, weak states or anarchy. In all these situations the strongest will prevail at the expense of the weak.

Of course much needs to be done to better the State, to make it more just, transparent and efficient. A lot can be done, if there is the political will to do this. One of the reasons why state reform is so difficult has to do with the way private interests, lobbies, and naked preferences take the dominance and try to use the monopoly of legitimate coercion to further their own ends. That's why a civic republican liberalism is so important when it comes to reform the State.

I think there is plenty of room for a strong and commited "intelligent design movement" in politics and institution building that is able to come up with liberating public institutions that support a liberating private sphere.

But one thing is certain: evading the cost of rights will, in the end, be evading their benefits too. Sunstein and Holmes... we got it.

The information in the book was useful. The condition of the book was disappointing. It was supposed to be new, but the cover was bent and there was pen marks inside. I will hesitate before purchasing from Amazon again.

This is a little bit old in terms of tax liens, a venture that is dependent on making sure you have the most accurate info. I suggest reading The Beginner's Guide to Real Estate Tax Lien and Tax Deed Auctions, ISBN: 0978834607, a newer release.

This book has little to offer. Anybody who is impressed with this book must be related to Yocom or is comatose to the business world. The 16% Solution ... is much better albeit dated.

I couldn't get through this. The fourth time I read "you gotta do this!" I felt my time was better spent reading something without all the hype.

This is the first book on tax liens I've read so I don't have anything to compare it to. However, the info. presented in the book was very easy to understand and gives you a good grasp of why you would want to add this to your portfolio. I wish more states were covered; but that's okay. Overall, if you are wanting to become educated on the topic, this is a good place to start. However, if you want everything detailed and outlined; you're probably better off going to one of those seminars where they sign you up. This book will give any beginner a good first step. I plan on reading "16% solution" as well as doing more research on the internet...but overall, excellent first place to start.

It's a mediocre tax law outline--simply put. Buy it used, if at all.

This book is helpful and well organized like the other Emanuels. The questions at the end of each chapter are good. But, the book was published in 2005 and a lot has changed, making it obsolete in many areas. Beware! (and time for a new edition!).

This is just about as good as the other emanuel outlines, but income tax is a diificult subject to outline.

I usually like the Emanuel outlines and have found them invaluable now for eight other courses I've taken. The Taxation outline is an exception. I forced myself through the first five chapters in this book and then gave up on it, realizing that it was not adding to my general understanding of the course material or any of the little details either, for that matter. It was too hard to read and follow to be of help.

The outline was very helpful--tax is just a difficult subject to master. I used the book as a supplement to my text book. You certainly cannot use only the outline and expect to learn federal income tax well. It is an invaluable resource when used to help reinforce a concept. Also, when I did not understand a concept the outline was great because it generally used easier terms and examples to explain the bare bones of a subject. Once I understood the outline's explanation, it was much easier to understand my text book.

I was very disappointed and wrote to the authors without reply (to date). They seem unaware of the Lockean tradition and its handling by writers such as Henry George (who wrote far more clearly than they over 100 years ago).

The entitlements approach to justice is more in tune with the common law and history than the idea of collectivist "creation" of "rights", "offences" or "social mortgages".

As Pitt the Elder observed, taxation and the common law are strangers (which is why taxation statutes reeived a strict construction against the Crown).

I could go on but why? If this sort of stuff gets published I should have a go myself!

The short version of this dopey book is this: Without Uncle Sam to protect your stuff you'd probably get mugged without hope of getting it back. Therefore you dont actually own it. I think most mafia dons think along these lines.
In another context, the money sitting in your banks safe doesn't actually belong to you. It belongs to the security guard who keeps it from getting stolen.
John Locke is spinning in his grave. The Sophists are laughing their butts off.

In the Myth of Ownership, Murphy and Nagel attempt to invert the baseline for determining tax fairness. Instead of using the more or less pure market distribution of social welfare as the baseline from which to discuss the equity of the existing tax scheme (Should we tax the wealthy more? Should we tax capital gains? Is taxation of dividends equitable to those receiving dividends?), the authors believe it is more appropriate to proceed from another baseline. Their preferred baseline can be, in my view, formulated succinctly by reference to Ronald Dworkin's claim regarding the nature of a just state, i.e. that the 'sovereign virtue' of the state is equal concern for the fate of all citizens. Thus, in Murphy's and Nagel's view, any discussion of tax fairness must begin with this imperative, the fate of all citizens, and must keep it in mind where there is any serious discussion of tax equity since such discussions are really discussion of economic and social justice.

In the authors' view, to proceed from the baseline of market distributions of social welfare - - which most people agree would allow serious and troubling social outcomes - - is to utilize a market-centric conception of social justice. As all citizens are first that, i.e. citizens, all have a stake in the social compact and all must be the equal concern of the governing organs of the state. Thus, all have a right to live lives free of poverty and the inequalities allowed by pure market outcomes.

Those tax commentators proceeding from the market baseline are those whom the authors call 'unreflective libertarians.' They are those who believe that they first owneth, and the government taketh away, and that their claims to ownership of their incomes and assets do not require government validation. The authors argue, conversely, that the only ownership we have is what government considers permissible (after taking Dworkin's maxim into account).

Murphy and Nagel argue that ownership, since only legitimized by government, is almost completely dependent upon government. To justify their position they invoke Hobbes and they assert that the 'state of nature' prior to the formation of government was a Hobbesian war of all against all. Thus, government, and robust government at that, performs more than a regulative role but is the condition sine qua non for the possibility of ownership, property rights, wealth and even civility.

While one might have sympathy for where Murphy and Nagel want to take us, their utilization of Hobbes to demonstrate the near heirophanic role of government is precisely what leads to many of their critics' charges of statism. Their argument could have proceeded without such strong claims (assertions, really) about human nature and government. Many conservatives would argue that government does not only NOT provide OF ITSELF the conditions for the possibility of ownership and property, they would argue that government at times impedes those conditions in unfair and inappropriate ways. As well, there are those who would argue that the authors' assessment of human nature is too dark, although convenient to their argument that it is government, and not social actors, that creates the legitimacy for claims of ownership and property rights, etc. Many would point out, in fact, that 'constitutional conventions' precede constitutions and thus that legitimacy flows from the people and the people's moral deliberations and not from government per se (Where, in fact, does non-despotic government obtain its legitimacy but from the people?).

The argument in the Myth of Ownership rests upon philosophical pillars that are unhelpful to its case and which lead to conclusions that are both philosophically problematic and politically fatal in a Western context, and so its central argument fails. Few would disagree with the claim that wealth and ownership are helped along by governmental frameworks, some safeguards against unjust seizures etc. But, I would have to reject Myth's statism, it's dark view of human nature, and so I come away disappointed at what promised to be a rubber-meets-the-road philosophical essay. It would have been a better book if the authors grounded the legitimacy of ownership and property rights claims in the moral imagination of human beings, rather than in Leviathan.

The main thrust of Murphy & Nagel's claim is that pre-tax income cannot be a moral base for the measurement of the fairness of taxation. Their claim is that the ultimate social justice of the entire economic system is the only proper end, of which taxation is a part, thus taxation and the equity thereof cannot be measured in a vaccum, rather only against the resulting end.

It would seem however that Murphy & Nagel make their claim too strong in that they claim that pre-tax income (and vertical equity) cannot be utilized as even a factor in the measurement. Unfortunately for their theory, pre-tax income is a fact of the market economy and the positive law surrounding such economy. Thus, if we are to ignore everyone's pre-tax income, the only possible result is that all after-tax income must come out equal. To claim any other result must come through the application of a judgment as to vertical equity.

It would seem that their claim would be far more sound if it were limited to saying that vertical equity may only be utilized as a means to achievement of the end of social justice. Murphy & Nagel, however, want to make their claim stronger so as to be able to discount the tax equity argument entirely. Ultimately such an argument must fail due to the reality of pre-tax income, but it is still a very interesting and well written book.

Nagel and Murphy have missed an important point in not recognizing that although property rights are conventional, Nozick gives a very convinving ontology of property rights that is compatible with the Lockean tradition. In other words, though property rights as they exist are conventional, they arise from the state of nature in a manner such that government enforcement is not an inherent quality of them. Hence, in arguing that individuals do not wholly own the fruits of their labor due to the fact that the possession of such fruits is enabled by government enforcement of property rights, Nagel and Murphy are clearly missing why Nozick comes to hold the entitlement view of property.

With all of this said, this is a pretty good book overall. It is one thing to disagree with the authors and their argument, it's another to outrightly discredit each of them as individuals. Previous reviewers that oversimplify what Murphy and Nagel are doing here seemingly either do not understand the complexities of these issues, or do not have the intellectual honesty and/or curiosity to consider something that is prima facie opposed to their opinion. To question the academic credibility of the authors is simply ignorant, as both are highly reputable and regarded, and to assert that the authors "seem unaware of the Lockean tradition" is dubious, since Locke is clearly mentioned and farily represented in the book.

Unfortunately, the title of this book has little to do with its content. If you're looking for nitty gritty details on tax strategies for active stock traders, you'll be disappointed to find only one chapter that comes close.

Tesser provides useful tax advice for the general taxpayer, which makes me wonder why he did not call the book something like, "Beating the IRS After Tax Reform." Odds are the publisher wanted to take advantage of the boom in daytrading and online brokerages.

This book gives a unique point of view so, it does not duplicate what you can get in other tax books. It advocates you try to qualify for 'Trader Status', and there are several Supreme Court tax cases concerning this difficult to qualify status. This status means that your TRADE as a serious business, hold postions for generally less than a month. All your expenses become fully deductable on Schedule C, HOWEVER you lose Capital Gain treatment AND must pay Social Security and Medicare taxes on your Self Employment income but you can set up a pension plan and/or SEP IRA. I think there is too great a danger of a nasty IRS audit, and not enough taxes saved. A difficult route for a Futures Trader, nearly impossible for a Stock trader except for some SOES traders.

It's hard to write a book for everyone, but Ted Tesser's book comes close. Basic tax and investment strategies are explained as well as concepts and tax tips that even a tax professional might miss.

I found the book enjoyable to read, totally unlike many of its genre. It is written in a very amusing fashion and the liberal use of anecdotes makes it even more entertaining. It is hard to believe that a book this informative could be so much fun to read.

The chapter on " This Business Of Trading" alone is worth the price of admission. Being a "trader" has numerous advantages over being an "investor" and this chapter shows you how to create a Trading Business. It clearly spelled out the differences between a "market maker", "investor", and "trader" and showed how one can graduate to a trader status (with the its many tax credits) from an investor. It is possible that making this switch could save thousands of dollars.

The amount of money you keep is more important than the amount of money you earn and Tesser makes this abundantly clear. The sections on retirement and estate planning are extremely useful.

Tesser is aggressive in his approach with the IRS and you may not feel comfortable with all of the deductions that you are entitled to. Checklists and worksheets make it easier for you to choose your comfort level.

I strongly recommend this book for both the beginner and advanced investor (trader) alike.

A high priced disappointment. That sums it up for me. If the title had been The Investor's Tax Survival Guide, it would have been worth a rating of three to four. However, as a trader, I found myself wading through page after page of irrelevant information. I found much better information free on the internet specifically aimed at traders.

One would be better served by spending the money on a visit to a tax investment professional. The book may help with general tax guidelines. It is not a how to guide nor did the author intend to be. It is written in an entertaining fashion and that is why I'm giving it the second star.

Make no mistake, Kahl is no hero. By his actions he disgraced his military record and the country he stood for. Corcoran certainly provides a thorough backgrand into what was happening to the rural communities in the eighties and how such times made farmers like Kahl ripe for recruitment by right-wing paramilitary zenophobes. Kahl and the Posse stem from the same roots that created homegrown terrorists like Tim McVeigh. For Kahl, a man who had served his country in WWII, the treatment of rural America in general and farmers in particular, must have been a bitter betrayal. While some have critized the local sheriff and federal agents for the way they handled the arrest, it is important to note that Kahl had a choice, to go peacefully or to take up arms. He chose violence, and in the end, there were no winners, only victims.

The shoot-out at Medina which inspired this book is a fascinating study in both the rural tax protest mentality and the little Caesar enforcement federal mentality.

The author takes the perspective of Freud, who does a reasonable job of analyzing the former, while glossing over the later. Both deceased marshalls, an Arkansas sheriff and Gordon Kahl would be alive today (or pehaps dead of natural causes) had Kenneth Muir simply followed the advice of his predecessor that Kahl was a pipsqueak best ignored.

Yes, the marshalls were just doing their jobs, but no, the arrest of Kahl was not a high priority. We could fill our jails and our cemetaries in short order with every two-bit bigot and loudmouth, but Kahl grew into a legend only after the arrest attempt went awry.

A far more balance perspective of the incident can be read in the book "Its All About Power", from two local law enforcement officers who tried to do their job of preventing trouble rather than making a statement.

Sadly, a deputy marshall with a young family from Bismarck who was just doing his job ended up paying with his life by following the orders of a Little Caesar superior who refused to take the good advice of his predecessor Bud Warren, who has been unfairly maligned in the drama.

Bitter Harvest is about a man who gets accused of something he did out of self-defense. He goes though racism and torture. This man murdered three men out of self-defense. This book was all about how people are so prejudice that they cannot even look passed their feelings about others. Bitter Harvest was based on a true story.
I enjoyed this book because it was a true story about the passed. About racism and how people hated each other. This is something that I really find interesting to read about. How people lived in America in the 60's or 70's. Bitter Harvest had tons of exciting adventures put in to the story. This is what people thought when they were apart of this story.
He reason I chose this story is because it is about crime. It is also about trust and truth. Also I loved the cover. I thought it would be interesting. It was believed that it would be about World War 2. Even though it wasn't it was still okay. Anyways all of these events are true with plenty of depth.

Bitter Harvest attempts to tell the story af Gordon Kahl, a man who combined the patriotism of the founding fathers with bigotry and paranoia. Kahl's life culminated February 13, 1983, when he engaged in a shootout with federal law enforcement near Medina, North Dakota. The LEO's were trying to serve a warrant for Kahl's arrest relating to a parole violation in Texas. Kahl, who earned less than $10,000 a year and had failed to file for at least seven years, had originally been charged with tax evasion after he appeared on television urging others to do the same. It is not certain who fired the first shot, but within seconds Kahl had killed two officers and wounded two more. Robert Cheshire, a deputy marshal, was killed when Kahl blew the already wounded man's head open from point blank range. The only indisputable fact of the shootout was the incompetency of the government. Kahl had sworn repeatedly that he would not be taken without a fight, was well armed, and surrounded by friends and family. Yet the officers apparently had no plans for a shootout, and the marshal in charge didn't even bother wearing his bulletproof vest. He was killed by a single shot to the heart.

The author, James Corcoran, is hardly unbiased in his treatment of the story. Corcoran attributes rural sympathy toward Kahl to prejudice born out of poverty, and doesn't seem to consider the possibility that some of what Kahl said might be true. Especially unforgivable is Corcoran's treatment of Kahl's death. He provides a "factual," official narrative in which Kahl and a sheriff shoot and kill each other. Corcoran later mentions, in a single paragraph, that the state Medical Examiner concluded that both men were shot from behind, and that a spent casing from Kahl's rifle was never found. Corcoran makes no attempt to fit this into
his narrative, or provide an alternative sequence of events.

In closing, Bitter Harvest is a disappointing effort to tell a fascinating story. The ideas and actions of Gordon Kahl are a noteworthy part of America's past, and may very well reappear in it's future.