http://www.goodreads.com/review/list_rss/680587 en-US Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:37:30 -0700 60 http://www.goodreads.com/ 200 41 http://www.goodreads.com/images/layout/gr_logo.gif 26992180 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:37:30 -0700
author: Jan Crawford Greenburg
name: Erin
average rating: 3.69
book published: 2008
rating: 4
read at:
date added: 07/17/08
shelves:
review:
This is a totally fascinating account of what happens behind the scenes in the Supreme Court appointment process. I've always wondered how Bush I came to appoint Souter; this book does a great job of setting the scene politically to explain his actions. While quite critical of Democrats and very lenient to downright praising of Republicans, this is still a great book.
]]> 22331574 Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:34:21 -0700
author: Richard H. Thaler
name: Erin
average rating: 3.84
book published: 2008
rating: 2
read at: 06/08
date added: 06/30/08
shelves:
review:
I heard about this book months before it came out and anxiously awaited it. Accordingly, my expectations were high, and this book fell short. I have two beefs: 1) the more interesting question for me is whether the government should use these "nudges," not how it would work if they were to do so. Unfortunately, there were maybe 15 pages on this, and they were not well done. They mentioned Rawls for literally 2 paragraphs - that's a problem. 2) Maybe it's because I learned torts from a commie, but there's a whole analysis of why patients and doctors should be able to contract to release the doctor from liability in the case of negligence, and it's extremely one-sided and uninteresting. That could be a great topic to write on, and others have done a great job, but it was a very blase account of their perspective. Med mal is a topic I know pretty well and have thought about; their scant coverage makes me question how well they covered other topics that I don't know well enough to see the flaws.
]]> 10354928 Sat, 28 Jun 2008 09:09:02 -0700
author: Oliver W. Sacks
name: Erin
average rating: 3.61
book published: 2007
rating: 3
read at: 06/08
date added: 06/28/08
shelves:
review:

]]> 17439109 Sat, 28 Jun 2008 09:08:25 -0700
author: Richard Dawkins
name: Erin
average rating: 3.99
book published: 2006
rating: 2
read at: 06/08
date added: 06/28/08
shelves:
review:

]]> 25198926 Sat, 28 Jun 2008 09:07:45 -0700
author: David Sedaris
name: Erin
average rating: 4.09
book published: 2008
rating: 4
read at: 06/08
date added: 06/28/08
shelves:
review:
I've always thought of DS as a formulaic writer, but it usually doesn't bother me too much. This time, for whatever reason, the formula was out in full force and I felt like it was hitting me over the head. Also, I heard him read about a year ago and he read some stories that were great but left them out of this book. Nevertheless, the book is worth reading. I particularly recommend "The Monster Mash" - but listen to it on This American Life - it sounds better than it reads.
]]> 23361581 Mon, 02 Jun 2008 23:01:50 -0700
author: Calvin Trillin
name: Erin
average rating: 3.97
book published: 2006
rating: 5
read at:
date added: 06/02/08
shelves:
review:
Calvin Trillin is my new favorite author. My favorite professor recommended this book, and it lived up to his high recommendation. It was so moving and beautiful, without feeling contrived or forced. It was authentic, amazing writing; I recommend it to anyone feeling emotional, or wanting to feel emotional.
]]> 18946621 Sat, 05 Apr 2008 10:24:13 -0700
That said, the experiments were very entertaining, and he raises a number of issues worth contemplating. Just the fact that someone is out there loudly and empirically questioning neoclassical economic theory is commendable.]]>
author: Dan Ariely
name: Erin
average rating: 3.71
book published: 2008
rating: 4
read at: 04/08
date added: 04/05/08
shelves:
review:
Overall, a great, quick read. (It took me about 4 days.) Ariely's voice was a bit annoying - his writing feels contrived and unnatural in his summaries at the end of many of the chapters. Also, I continually returned to the question of what Ariely's definition of rationality is - for such a prevalent concept in the book to go undefined felt like a huge gaffe.

That said, the experiments were very entertaining, and he raises a number of issues worth contemplating. Just the fact that someone is out there loudly and empirically questioning neoclassical economic theory is commendable.
]]> 11725021 Sat, 29 Mar 2008 16:39:49 -0700
]]>
author: Bob Woodward
name: Erin
average rating: 4.12
book published: 2005
rating: 5
read at: 03/08
date added: 03/29/08
shelves:
review:
I love Bob Woodward, and this book does not disappoint. It does, however, raise some serious questions about the freakish and arbitrary decision making that took place at the court in the 1970's. Seriously - Justices are described as making decisions for the least logical reasons: caprice, whim, coin toss... This is particularly distressing if you think about the fact that they were making decisions about the death penalty, abortion, busing, etc. But if you don't think about that aspect, this book is downright entertaining.


]]> 14010675 Fri, 22 Feb 2008 16:28:31 -0800
I recommend this book to other geeks who like to read about economics.]]>
author: Tim Harford
name: Erin
average rating: 3.73
book published: 2008
rating: 4
read at:
date added: 02/22/08
shelves:
review:
This book starts out extremely strong - the first 5-6 chapters are really, really interesting and really, really well written. The last two chapters overstep their bounds a bit; his argumentation gets a little attenuated the broader he reaches. But, the first 5 pages of the final chapter are amazing.

I recommend this book to other geeks who like to read about economics.
]]> 11724887 Sat, 05 Jan 2008 13:42:06 -0800
author: Ian Ayres
name: Erin
average rating: 3.57
book published: 2007
rating: 1
read at:
date added: 01/05/08
shelves:
review:
Reviews of this book described it as the next Freakonomics, so I picked it up. I guess it was kinda like Freakonomics, in that it was written by a super-smart academic, and it was about numbers. Oh, but it wasn't really like Freakonomics at all because it sucked.
]]> 11725270 Sat, 05 Jan 2008 13:40:23 -0800
author: Jeffrey Toobin
name: Erin
average rating: 4.05
book published: 2007
rating: 5
read at:
date added: 01/05/08
shelves:
review:
I really, really love Jeff Toobin. The first 30 pages are superb - they are extremely well-written, and they do an amazing job of setting the scene. He succeeds in straddling the fence between journalistic writing and tabloid. There's enough juice to amuse the reader, but enough substance so that you're not embarrassed to be reading it on MUNI.
]]> 10354956 Sat, 05 Jan 2008 13:35:29 -0800
author: Plato
name: Erin
average rating: 3.93
book published: 1980
rating: 3
read at: 01/08
date added: 01/05/08
shelves:
review:
I feel lukewarm about this book. It's no Phaedrus, but I guess it's worth reading.
]]> 10354966 Wed, 12 Dec 2007 22:03:40 -0800
1) His fundamental argument is that the courts retain legitimacy when they make decisions that comport with the Constitutional views of the majority of the country. For most cases, he suggests measuring this majority opinion via Congress, since they are supposed to represent their constituents' views. He doesn't really answer the obvious question: how does deferring to Congress' interpretation of the Constitution equal legitimacy? I would think that the test for the legitimacy of the courts would be a situation where the courts disagree with Congress, but Congress acquiesces to the Courts because the dispute falls within the purview of the Courts. Isn't that more affirming of legitimacy than the idea that if the courts agree with Congress, the courts' views are legitimate?

2) Jeffrey Rosen gives short shrift to the counterargument, which I understand to be the prevalent view: that the courts enforce the Constitution to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. He mentions this view for a few sentences, maybe a paragraph, in the opening chapter. I would like more information about his argument vis-a-vis this claim. I bet it's missing because his argument doesn't hold up.

Even though I don't see the causality that he attempts to prove and urges, this book is still interesting as a history lesson. And Jeffrey Rosen is still one of my faves.]]>
author: Jeffrey Rosen
name: Erin
average rating: 3.00
book published: 2006
rating: 3
read at: 02/08
date added: 12/12/07
shelves:
review:
I LOVE Jeffrey Rosen. I would marry Jeffrey Rosen. Whenever he has a piece in the NYT Magazine, I read it first, even before the Ethicist. But, this book failed to satisfy. I have two major complaints:

1) His fundamental argument is that the courts retain legitimacy when they make decisions that comport with the Constitutional views of the majority of the country. For most cases, he suggests measuring this majority opinion via Congress, since they are supposed to represent their constituents' views. He doesn't really answer the obvious question: how does deferring to Congress' interpretation of the Constitution equal legitimacy? I would think that the test for the legitimacy of the courts would be a situation where the courts disagree with Congress, but Congress acquiesces to the Courts because the dispute falls within the purview of the Courts. Isn't that more affirming of legitimacy than the idea that if the courts agree with Congress, the courts' views are legitimate?

2) Jeffrey Rosen gives short shrift to the counterargument, which I understand to be the prevalent view: that the courts enforce the Constitution to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. He mentions this view for a few sentences, maybe a paragraph, in the opening chapter. I would like more information about his argument vis-a-vis this claim. I bet it's missing because his argument doesn't hold up.

Even though I don't see the causality that he attempts to prove and urges, this book is still interesting as a history lesson. And Jeffrey Rosen is still one of my faves.
]]>