Liberty Books

This is more a long essay than a book, but it's an essay that you'll never forget. Sidney Hook was an educator by training, and this book offers an education in freedom, liberty, and the human condition in general.

It's important to note, though, that this is a book written in a certain time. Sidney Hook was a leading anti-communist, and that perspective is clear throughout the book. With the fall of the Berlin wall, some of his writing may seem a bit old-fashioned, it's still relevant to our time.

As a lover of American law and a 'court-watcher', this title hooked me in immediately. Trying to find the balance between maximum democracy and learned aristocracy has always been a struggle so the main thesis should come as no suprise. Our constitution has rough edges. What is suprising is Hook's diagnosis.

The first thing Hook does is to lambaste those who believe in absolute rights. The first and fifth amendment have clashed. The first amendment can even clash against itself and when these happen, one right must yield to the other. The bill of rights offers us no roadmap in how to decide this so Mr. Hook reaches for the first available solution- that of utilitarianism. I've always been skeptical of 'The greatest good for the greatest number. All others get screwed.' but sometimes it is unavoidable. Hook still seems too eager to use this 'quick-fix' to resolve the issue.

Next, he goes on to textualism in the constitution. Like it or not, there is no text that conveys with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY what it's author meant. Our constitution comes close. 'Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion,' seems pretty clear on the surface but what constitutes a religion, is it a pre-existing establishment congress may not respect or simply their own establishment, and does this imply that congress may offer 'respect' to many religions thereby avoiding the problem by not showing preference to only one? Whew! Difficult stuff. At some point (godels proof), we have to rely on someone's interpretation. Who better than the supreme court? Here, the only skepticism I have is Hook's use of the 'Bork Method' of trying to figure out what the founders- He uses Jefferson and Madison- meant by quoting their personal letters. I know that Hook realizes there was more than two people's intentions, but you'd never think it.
The point of disagreement I have with Mr. Hook is on judicial review. He's right, it's not authorized by the constitution, merely implied. But there are two extremes. One is congress as the final arbiter of which laws are constitutional an which aren't, or the courts could do it. Mr. Hook seems to trust the congress more than the courts. He does not recognize that the danger in democracy is that the people are generally short-sighted and are not likely to read the constitution closely (how many of your friends can name the first ten amendments?). The congress, being, through elections, directly accountable to the people, may not do what is in the best interest of the constitution if it will not help them get re-elected. With the supreme court there is not this difficulty, but another. They are not at all accountable to the people having been appointed for life. The only check on them is that they can only rule on cases brought to them (they must adhere to jurisdiction) but I'd rather the justices (who'se job it is to read the constitution) be safeguarding congress than congress do it themselves. We can either trust Scalia and Ginsburg or Helmes and Daschale. The choice is obvious. The tentative compromise- You'll have to read the book to find out- Hook offers is brilliant so in a round-about way, I agree with him again.

For such an exacting subject, the author must be excused for a little pedantry. This is difficult stuff, but the book is short and if you're into American law and judiciary, you'll not be able to put this one down!!

Patsy and the Declaration is an historical fiction novel set in Philadelphia during the summer of 1776. The main character is Patsy Black, a twelve year old girl who is the daughter of the local tavern and inn owner. One afternoon, Patsy meets a red-haired stranger. As a result of his pecular behavior, Patsy comes to the conclusion that he is a British spy. That same day, the local blacksmith's shop is set on fire. Patsy is convinced the fire is the work of a British spy and is determined to find him. Patsy and the Declaration provides a fairly even balance between historical fact and fiction, especially concerning the atmosphere of Philadelpia during this time period. It clearly describes how confusing and scary these events would be to a child. The main character, Patsy, and the secondary characters tend to be flat, static charcters. Patsy does not seem to change muich from from the beginning to the end. She does not learn any new lessons, except that people who seem to be friends may really be an enemy. However, this concept was not emphasized much in the book. The plot of the story seems more important than the actual characters. The story is told in limited third person. The reader knows what Patsy is thinking and sees most of the events through her eyes. Consequently, the reader is kept in suspense, along with Patsy, about who the real arsonist is. If the reader had known from the beginning, the story would not have been very interesting.

This book is about two girls, Barbara and Patsy, who live in Philadelphia during the American Revolution. They try to find out who burned down the blacksmith shop. Is it the mysterious red-haired stranger?

This book is important for several reasons. I mention only a few here. Schelling, a great dialectical (in the modern 'German Idealist' sense) thinker/philosopher in these pages makes a crucial admission of the impossibility of overcoming (ancient) esotericism. (Hegel makes a similar admission in the great preface of the Phenomenology.) For the sake of this short note let us think of the esoteric as the unchanging. Schelling here admits that there is an unmediated 'basis' that accompanies us through all our dialectical adventures. This 'origin' is subsumed in God but it is not 'overcome' or surpassed. Indeed, this 'basis' rages through (at least!) all things capable (like humans) of spirit. Schelling goes so far as to say that "To separate from God they [all creatures] would have to carry on this becoming on a basis different from Him. But since there can be nothing outside God, this contradiction can only be solved by things having their basis in that within God which is not God Himself, i.e. in that which is the basis of His existence." It is this unmediated basis (within God but forever separate from him, unmastered even by Him!) that accompanies all things through their dialectical adventures. In fact, this unmediated 'pole' (if you will) threatens to drag us down (back! ...A genuine horror for all dialectical thought!) towards it. "All evil strives back towards chaos" Schelling says. [Digressing for a moment I would like to point out that this eerily prefigures Nietzsche's remark that "Everywhere, the way to the beginnings leads to barbarism."] By this Schelling indicates (or at least seems to) that every dialectical step 'forward' can never outrun the shadow of chaos, the negative, the unmediated, the unreasonable. ...Is this the dawn of the postmodern? I would also point out that Schelling, in his later [post 1809] speculations, found something that genuinely caused him unease in this way of thinking. After writing this essay (1809) he publishes next to nothing, though he lives to 1854. Did he foresee the dialectical being swallowed up by the unchanging basis? "Nothing at all in creation can remain ambiguous" - he bravely says. But the uncreated, unknowable, unmediated and unmastered Basis remains in God - and in us all!

This is a tricky essay to read, in part because a large part of the essay is devoted to the task of differentiating Schelling's nuanced (but still fairly broad-strokes) account of the nature of human freedom from a number of other positions, not all of which have similar aims. At the same time, the essay is well worth the effort, both for the insight it gives into how to think the unthinkable and the non-rational, and for the influence of this essay on a wide range of thinkers such as Nietzsche, Freud (probably indirectly), Heidegger and Derrida.

The easiest way into the Inquiries is to notice that Schelling thinks of himself as continuing the tradition of transcendental philosophy that was inaugurated by Kant and pursued by Schelling's ally Fichte, but that unlike both Schelling is clearly engaged in a transcendental metaphysics: an inquiry not merely into what we must think (or what we are permitted to posit) in order to think freedom but into what the ultimate nature of reality must be like in order for freedom to possible. Schelling's novel insight is that freedom is only possible on the condition of good and evil -- that freedom has to be something more than mere indifference but must in some sense represent the possibility of a real choice with moral weight, choice that arises out of a situation in which we are tempted by evil but able to choose good. So, the question regarding freedom becomes a question regarding what we must think about the ultimate nature of reality in order to account for the possibility of good and evil. Here Schelling is happy to call what I have described as the ultimate nature of reality "God," but we should recognize that his term is conceived broadly enough to be open both to a Spinozistic -- God as Nature -- as well as a Theistic -- God as absolutely good and all powerful -- account. Probably the best simple formulation for what Schelling means by God is "the self-revealing substance" -- a formulation that is both clearly linked to Spinoza and to Christian theology.

Schelling carefully shows that freedom is inconsistent with a mechanistic conception of reality (which is at least part of what you find in Spinoza, though Schelling aims here also to revive the Spinozistic tradition from the contemporary challenges that had been levelled against it) but that it is equally incompatible with a traditional Theistic account, since that leaves no room for the possibility of evil, as well as a Gnostic account that makes good and evil into a dualistic opposition, since that leaves no room for real choice between them. Evil is not a positive reality opposed to good, but exists as a permanent possibility rooted in the reality from which emerges the good. Insofar as reality is understood as having the potential to give rise to order, unity, life, consciousness and freedom, it must also contain the potential for dissolution, chaos, death, annihilation and disease. This potential is not per se evil, but is manifest as evil insofar as the struggle towards the overcoming of irrationality and dissolution is a real struggle that can never be finally won. What Schelling calls the dark principle (the entropic tendency of matter to clump indifferently and dissolve patterning against the tendency towards spontaneous growth and the birth of order; the sluggishness of life; the tendency of ego to define itself over and against rather than with and in relation to others), this dark principle is a permanent possibility that breaks down and resists the formation of unity and community.

For daughter in college - saved $ over the college bookstore!

This is a great introduction to Church and State relations from the early colonial period to today, touching on the early theocracies of New England, the post-revolutionary period that introduced the concept of church/state separation, and the inconsistent Supreme Court decisions made to uphold this ideal.

Of particular interest is the rather brutal history of the first colonies as they executed people for being the wrong type of Christian, the founding of Maryland as a refuge for Catholics and the founding of Rhode Island as a provider of true religious freedom before the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ever drafted.

This is great as introductory reading, but is in no way comprehensive or authoritative. A good bibliography points the way to further, more in-depth study of the subject.

This one of the most audio recordings and interviews that every American should read and own for a factual accounting of the Tax-Exempt Foundations power over the government and the private welfare of each and every citizen. I would highly suggest purchasing Radio Liberty's book printing of "Foundations: Their Power and Influence" to accompany this audio recording or CD (directly from Radio Liberty). Hopefully the CD version will be available soon on Amazon.
You can as they say, hear it directly from the horses' mouth with interviews from Norman Dodd concerning "The Enemies Within" and "Tragedy & Hope: A History of the World in Our Time" by Carroll Quigley and Dr. Monteith on the true nature of GeoPolitics.
Radio Liberty with their much valued and pertinent books, audio and video along with Dr. Stanley Monteith's will bring home to you a wealth of need-to-know information.

One of the first investigative reports by Radio
Liberty's Dr. Stan Montieth. And still one of
his very best! Pick Up on it!

One would think that American universities would be centers of free speech, where all sorts of views could be stated freely. Well, that hasn't been entirely the case recently. And this book examines some of the problems that have arisen.

I would have thought that the fundamental issues would be simple. Most speech is inoffensive. Some speech is actually illegal (sedition, incitement, or whatever). The line between illegal speech and legal speech may be a subject of debate, but that line exists somewhere. And some speech is in between: it is offensive but not illegal. And those who are offended have plenty of options: they can shun such people, or tell others about their bad manners, and so forth.

As this book points out, once one has rules against offensive speech, not just against intimidation (or worse), that leads to thought control. And there are some examples of what has been happening along these lines.

One spectacular example is the 1993 "water buffalo" case at the University of Pennsylvania. A Penn freshman got in trouble for using the term "water buffalo" in response to students who were making too much noise at midnight outside his dormitory. Although a simple apology from him would have been the most reasonable resolution, Penn made this into a major case. So did much of the nation! The result was not only a victory for the accused student, but the removal of the "speech codes" at Penn. It seems that the speech codes were doomed by the idiotic claims of Penn officials, including the Penn President, that they were merely following due process in the water buffalo case.

Downs describes how speech codes were removed at the University of Wisconsin as well. And there is some fascinating material about the University of California, Berkeley. The campus newspaper ran an ad that offended some people, and then compounded the problem by apologizing for it (offending even more folks). And then, there was a speech by well-known conservative David Horowitz. An assistant chancellor warned Horowitz that he might be shouted down "because the right of free expression also" belonged to those that disagreed with him! I find it incredible that such censorship could be called "free expression." Others were similarly censored just for having "politically incorrect" views. A striking example was former Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who was prevented from speaking to 2000 waiting ticket holders by a couple of hundred foes of free speech. One of these people, when challenged about what she had done replied that she didn't "believe in free speech for war criminals." By the way, given Netanyahu's record, I find such a charge against him ludicrous. And I wonder if genuine criminals, such as Yasir Arafat, would have been shouted down at Berkeley.

One more topic in the book is the sexual misconduct policy at Columbia University. That's another university that has a problem with taking political correctness too seriously. But in this case, the issue was simply that people accused of sexual misconduct were denied due process, including the right to hear the testimony against them or to cross-examine. That policy eventually had to be scrapped. Still, the incident serves to show the moral blindness of some of those who create policies on campus.

I found this book very interesting and I strongly recommend it.

The main purpose and content of this book is to present four case studies. In the first two, those of U. Penn and U. Wisconsin, thanks to efforts made by faculty and students in the last few years, gains were made in restoring some degree of free speech and other Bill-of-Rights protections to faculty and students. In the other two, Columbia and Berkeley, no such efforts have been made and the status quo continues. The author states that most or all other campuses resemble the latter two.

Also, in introductory chapters, the author gives a precis of what has happened to colleges and universities since 1987:

(1) the redefinition of the mission of the university from the search for truth and knowledge to the transforming of individuals into sensitive members of the community from whom all racism, sexism and homophobia has been washed away.

(2) the redefinition of speech as action. One doesn't state an opinion, one offends another person or harasses another person. So, codes against harassment and creating a hostile environment include saying anything of which the censors disapprove.

(3) "critical race theory", the view that racism is endemic to liberal society and that such notions as individual, reason, merit, etc. are racist notions and should be suppressed.

The author, like many others, states that the motive for the de facto repeal of the Bill of Rights at universities was that the welfare of some groups was more important. He goes on to point out that the consequences have been anything but beneficial, even to those groups. Feelings of antagonism have increased. An increasing infantilization or dependency of the favored groups has occurred. etc.

The author cites a number of other interesting recent books, including McWhorter, Losing the Race; Wood, Diversity; Kuran, Private Truths, Public Lies; Farber and Sherry, Beyond All Reason; and Kors and Silvergate, The Shadow University. Kors and Silvergate have continued to be active in the area and have established an organization called Foundation for Individual Freedom in Education (FIRE) with a website, www.thefire.org, where complaints can be registered. The site makes interesting if harrowing reading. There is also a database in which you can look up any college and get FIRE's rating of the degree of freedom on that campus.

One strength of the book is its narrow focus. That means, however, that other books need also to be consulted. The book is especially weak on the causes or development of the present situtation. The author states that he became a faculty member in the mid-1980s as a result of having written an anti-Nazi book (PhDs looking for faculty positions, take note!). By that time, the situation had already developed. For an eyewitness account in narrative form of the groups and motives that led to the present situation, see The Rape of Alma Mater. For a detailed study of the situation at the present time, one which includes other parts of society that are affected by what is happening in academia, read While America Sleeps: How ... and Indoctrination Are Destroying America From Within -- While America Sleeps: How Islam, Immigration and Indoctrination Are Destroying America From Within.

The present book is unique in sounding a hopeful note and in providing others with the two cases of (limited) success. It is to be hoped that other academics and students will read this book and learn how to take back their own universities.

A simple search of the Internet provided limited at best information on Saint Patrick. A friend lent our family a simple children's book on this man's life. Obviously written for the younger reader, my 6 year old son enjoyed the book as much as my wife and I did.

The author does a good job of outlining Patrick's life and the victories work through him. One can not help but gain a respect for the man in reading this book. The book certainly inspires the reader to expand their knowledge of this man whose holiday brings much festivity every year. Also helpful at the end of each chapter are a series of questions and new vocab to help aid further discussion and comprehension with your children. I enjoyed this book and recommend it for a quick read as well as helpful instruction for your children.

I'm a homeschooling mom of 3, and read this book myself before assigning it to my daughter. About all I knew of St. Patrick before reading this book, was that he got a holiday in March, and he was from Ireland. This is a fascinating, fast paced, well written account of an incredible man of God. I learned so much, and was truly inspired at well as engaged. My daughter (11) is currently reading it, and is also loving it. It should be noted that it has review questions at the end of each chapter- so helpful! I highly recommend this book.

Prof. Campbell gives a very complete
overview of one of America's last Con-
stitutionally correct senators and the
best from North Carolina in almost a
decade. Students at the University
that Prof. Campbell works at better
take notes!

dr campbell did excellent research on this old school southern democrat and his book extolls the senator's virtues, reveals his segregationist flaws and most importantly demonstrates his charming wit. an excellent read!

gary e

Unlike most historians who consider slavery as an unfortunate sidebar to the ideological and political foundations of America, Finkelman boldy places slavery at the center of America's founding. Beginning with the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and continuing through to Jefferson's Declaration of Independence, his views on race and slavery, and his relationship to a woman enslaved to him (Sally Hemings), Finkelman makes a very valid argument that the "traditional" political leadership of the Jeffersonian era was perpetually - not occasionally - in debate about the issue of slavery, with most of those leaders falling on the pro-slavery side of the argument. The real value of the book is Finkelman's two chapters on Jefferson, whose political influence and opinion where nearly as revered by his peers as they are by contemporary early American historians. While noted historians such as Dumas Malone, Joseph Ellis, and Merrill Peterson have stretched the bounds of interpretation of the few seemingly anti-slavery comments Jefferson made or wrote in order to cast him as the unfortunate victim of an institution which he disliked, Finkelman is one of the first to put all of Jefferson's views on slavery and race - the few that seem anti-slavery, the majority that are anti-black, all of which are contradictory - together in one place, IN THEIR PROPER CONTEXT, up for public scrutiny. For anyone wanting an approach to understanding Jefferson's true views on slavery - based on the historical evidence - this is the book to start and, for now, end with. I didn't give it five stars because its focus is kind of narrow, but that could be because Finkelman has done such a great job of narrowing his focus and successfully arguing his understanding of "Race and Liberty in the Age of Jefferson."

Biographers of Jefferson and historians of the American Revolution have a dilemma, resulting in the inspirational dayglow treatment of their subject. Why should should anyone in pursuit of the facts have a dilemma, the facts speak for themselves? This is an invaluable portrait in greyer hues and contains the delete button data in its two chapters on Jefferson beside a detailed and very interesting history of the slavery debate in the period of the Constitution. Since Jefferson was a man of his time and yet also a man in an extraordinary time almost out of time, the paradox finds what we might expect, a man blocked and buffered in a semi-conscious state of contradiction. Skip Nietzsche, here's the dull reality: in a strange way the realization Jefferson was 'multi-phrenic' rescues Jeckyll here. Yet this makes Jefferson interesting in a different way, in a very useful book (that won't make the bestseller lists). Good piece, fascinating. Ironically rescued Jefferson from my nervous disbelief in many yankee doodle treatments. Makes him fascinating all over again.

This book is well written, well documented. Even if you are not researching your slave ancestry, you will find references to slaveholders and other residents in the Amite County, Mississippi area. It's a small book for the price, but I found it well worth it for adding rich detail to my family history research out of Amite County.

"The Slaves of Liberty" is a well written, and well researched book. The author goes to great lengths to document sources and this will be of great help to others researching their family. I do take issue with the author's simplistic statements concerning the start of the Civil War. However, I still found this to be a must read.