by Catherine Crier ‧ RELEASE DATE: Oct. 8, 2002
No raves for these rants.
A folksy screed by Court TV host Crier assailing today’s favorite targets: greedy, unprincipled lawyers; greedy, corrupt politicians; and greedy, self-serving bureaucrats.
Herself both a lawyer and journalist, Crier doesn’t like much about the two professions that have enriched her. The law, she says, has infected like a virulent virus every aspect of American life; the news media are more interested in revenues and ratings than in news. Crier trots out and bludgeons the usual suspects. We have too many rules and regulations, too many entitlements, too many lawsuits, too much political correctness. The public schools are awful. Government agencies have too much power. Criminals are too often portrayed as victims (the OJ acquittal was a bad thing). Hate crime legislation and mandatory minimum sentences and capital punishment are bad. Too much easy money corrupts politicians (the Enron situation is outrageous). Clinton shouldn’t have pardoned Marc Rich. Ross Perot was weird but prescient. Politicians don’t really want campaign finance reform. Class-action suits should be severely restricted. Lobbyists do everyone but themselves a disservice. We ought to lighten up on illegal drugs. It’s time we shouted “We’re not gonna take it any more!” and reclaimed our country. Crier’s language is as unexceptional as her theses. Clichés sprout like dandelions in the lawn of her just-plain-folks prose, and even in her most serious moments she cannot seem to locate a fresh phrase anywhere. (At the end, after she has presented her hopelessly impossible solutions to the messes she has described, she declares, “Only a change of heart can accomplish this.”) Crier describes herself as a compulsive clipper of periodicals, and indeed her book has a sort of scrapbook quality. It’s full of accounts of odd lawsuits and egregious offenses by her villains. But her decision not to cite sources is troubling, for she occasionally gets things wrong—e.g., she tells us that Shakespeare’s “belongings” were recently found; they weren’t.No raves for these rants.
Pub Date: Oct. 8, 2002
Page Count: 256
Review Posted Online: May 19, 2010
Kirkus Reviews Issue: July 15, 2002
Share your opinion of this book
by Paul Kalanithi ‧ RELEASE DATE: Jan. 19, 2016
A moving meditation on mortality by a gifted writer whose dual perspectives of physician and patient provide a singular...
Awards & Accolades
Best Books Of 2016
New York Times Bestseller
Pulitzer Prize Finalist
A neurosurgeon with a passion for literature tragically finds his perfect subject after his diagnosis of terminal lung cancer.
Writing isn’t brain surgery, but it’s rare when someone adept at the latter is also so accomplished at the former. Searching for meaning and purpose in his life, Kalanithi pursued a doctorate in literature and had felt certain that he wouldn’t enter the field of medicine, in which his father and other members of his family excelled. “But I couldn’t let go of the question,” he writes, after realizing that his goals “didn’t quite fit in an English department.” “Where did biology, morality, literature and philosophy intersect?” So he decided to set aside his doctoral dissertation and belatedly prepare for medical school, which “would allow me a chance to find answers that are not in books, to find a different sort of sublime, to forge relationships with the suffering, and to keep following the question of what makes human life meaningful, even in the face of death and decay.” The author’s empathy undoubtedly made him an exceptional doctor, and the precision of his prose—as well as the moral purpose underscoring it—suggests that he could have written a good book on any subject he chose. Part of what makes this book so essential is the fact that it was written under a death sentence following the diagnosis that upended his life, just as he was preparing to end his residency and attract offers at the top of his profession. Kalanithi learned he might have 10 years to live or perhaps five. Should he return to neurosurgery (he could and did), or should he write (he also did)? Should he and his wife have a baby? They did, eight months before he died, which was less than two years after the original diagnosis. “The fact of death is unsettling,” he understates. “Yet there is no other way to live.”A moving meditation on mortality by a gifted writer whose dual perspectives of physician and patient provide a singular clarity.
Pub Date: Jan. 19, 2016
Page Count: 248
Publisher: Random House
Review Posted Online: Sept. 29, 2015
Kirkus Reviews Issue: Oct. 15, 2015
Share your opinion of this book
Occasionally wonky but overall a good case for how the dismal science can make the world less—well, dismal.
“Quality of life means more than just consumption”: Two MIT economists urge that a smarter, more politically aware economics be brought to bear on social issues.
It’s no secret, write Banerjee and Duflo (co-authors: Poor Economics: A Radical Rethinking of the Way To Fight Global Poverty, 2011), that “we seem to have fallen on hard times.” Immigration, trade, inequality, and taxation problems present themselves daily, and they seem to be intractable. Economics can be put to use in figuring out these big-issue questions. Data can be adduced, for example, to answer the question of whether immigration tends to suppress wages. The answer: “There is no evidence low-skilled migration to rich countries drives wage and employment down for the natives.” In fact, it opens up opportunities for those natives by freeing them to look for better work. The problem becomes thornier when it comes to the matter of free trade; as the authors observe, “left-behind people live in left-behind places,” which explains why regional poverty descended on Appalachia when so many manufacturing jobs left for China in the age of globalism, leaving behind not just left-behind people but also people ripe for exploitation by nationalist politicians. The authors add, interestingly, that the same thing occurred in parts of Germany, Spain, and Norway that fell victim to the “China shock.” In what they call a “slightly technical aside,” they build a case for addressing trade issues not with trade wars but with consumption taxes: “It makes no sense to ask agricultural workers to lose their jobs just so steelworkers can keep theirs, which is what tariffs accomplish.” Policymakers might want to consider such counsel, especially when it is coupled with the observation that free trade benefits workers in poor countries but punishes workers in rich ones.Occasionally wonky but overall a good case for how the dismal science can make the world less—well, dismal.
Pub Date: Nov. 12, 2019
Page Count: 432
Review Posted Online: Aug. 28, 2019
Kirkus Reviews Issue: Sept. 15, 2019
Share your opinion of this book
More About This Book
SEEN & HEARD
Hey there, book lover.
We’re glad you found a book that interests you!