Brief Answers to the Big Questions

by Stephen Hawking
Bantam Books

book review by Christopher Klim

“So remember to look up at the stars and not down at your feet. Try to make sense of what you see and wonder about what makes the universe exist.”

Written at the end of his life, although formulated during and published posthumously, the once in a lifetime scientist Stephen Hawking lands serious scientific questions with a philosophical bent. He guides us by the hand through the creation of the universe, the mystery of black holes, and the possibilities of time travel, giving nods to the seminal pioneers of each discovery along the way. And like all the great thinkers, he’s unafraid to tackle the existence of God and the future of mankind on the planet.

The deft way in which Hawking nails down his points is one of his great gifts as a lecturer. For example, he explains why alien sightings are likely a ruse: its secretive nature. It’s a forgone conclusion that a visiting alien species would be superior in knowledge and ability, but the alleged well-meaning aliens are doing a very poor job helping us with future concerns. Conversely, a less than noble alien visitation would be painfully obvious to all. Anyway you position potential alien visits, it’s likely they’d be obvious by now.

When it comes to time travel, Hawking muses that it hasn’t happened. Perhaps Einstein’s limitation that nothing can move faster than light—the theorized condition for moving backward in time—is true, or perhaps man never achieved the ability in the future. Either way, Hawking makes plain, if man could travel back in time, we’d be bumping into time travelers from the future visiting us in present day. Furthermore, it’s human nature to meddle, as time travelers certainly would in our current day and age.

Superior at scientific explanation and pedestrian at philosophy and politics, the answers to the larger, cutting-edge questions of physics, and a few cultural musings, are delivered with aplomb. Hawking’s good heart and humanity shine through and charm the reader. Quantum physics is the central theme, although much of the verbiage if taken slowly will be accessible to the layman. It’s not important that you understand everything, only that you witness one of the century’s great minds at work.

RECOMMENDED by the US Review

Advertisements

Who Purchases Book Reviews?

The short answer is everyone does, although it might not be evident at first. National publishing trade magazines present the illusion that they are fair and balanced—a familiar phrase—in their review coverage, but given a closer look, these publications thrive on the sales of expensive advertising space, including their front and back covers. Other national trades don’t even hide the fact that they charge hundreds of dollars per review. You’ll notice that very few small publishers are mentioned in their pages. The presses that cannot afford ad space and review fees coincidentally go unmentioned, and all independent presses (i.e. micro presses and self-publishers) are typically barred from book review consideration.

Consider that advertising fees are built into the budgets of large press books, and when you purchase one, you are in effect paying for their media coverage somewhere along the line. There is simply no justification for highlighting or featuring the next chick-lit-murder-mystery redux novel in any of the media outlets, other than it is big business for the monolithic presses and they have the dollars to push their product. We are a capitalist society, and profit drives many editorial decisions. Any author who manages his/her own marketing has run into a media outlet (print, radio, etc.) that has promised increased coverage with the purchase of advertising space or time. While many local newspapers still hold an air of integrity, these venues are drying up faster than the rapidly fading printed news industry.

This state of affairs casts a long shadow over literature. One byproduct is that the large commercial presses, by virtue of supplying the economic lifeblood to the publishing media, control what reaches the reading public. Due to either politics or economics, certain genres and ideas are not desirable to large presses, and therefore, vital topics are kept from the public discourse, while excellent independent press authors go unnoticed. In the end, they turn to the Internet for help.

A survey of the web reveals hundreds of review outlets—some specialized, others general. Many of these reviewers write for free, and their coverage is professionally uneven. These are hobby sites. Meanwhile the Internet has killed the three-headed monster of publishing: paper, ink, and distribution. Through the years, paper and ink became increasingly expensive, and most recently rising gas prices (i.e. a distribution cost) was the death knell for most brick and mortar publications, but in the digital age, the Internet can more than fill the need while providing work for dedicated journalists.

The US Review of Books was created for two reasons: first, to provide inexpensive access to professional book reviewers for all authors and, second, to pay the writers a fair wage for their work. In less than a decade, the US Review has employed dozens of reviewers and written over twelve thousand reviews to mostly happy authors. They are mostly happy, because the USR’s reviewers are honest and thoughtful. If a book is hackneyed or wasn’t properly edited, perhaps for style and spelling, the review is going to mention these facts. Luckily that isn’t the norm, and the large presses are starting to notice and quietly submit their books for value media coverage as the USR climbs to the top of search engines. Seeing the future, publicity agents and author services companies are also integrating the US Review into their marketing plans. Good books deserve serious consideration and discussion, regardless of where and how the book is published.

As the millennials—sometimes called the Digital Generation—assumes authority, the Internet and all modes of digital transfer will take control. It makes sense; it’s convenient and mostly green technology. Outlets like the US Review of Books will continue to expand in order to fill authors’ marketing needs while providing employment opportunities to the writing/journalist force.

The Diversity Delusion: How Race and Gender Pandering Corrupt the University and Undermine Our Culture

by Heather Mac Donald
St. Martin’s Press

book review by Christopher Klim

“The great accomplishment of European Enlightenment was to require all forms of authority to justify themselves through rational argument, rather than through coercion or an unadorned appeal to tradition.”

For decades, splinter groups on campus have seized control of events and departments to block intellectual discourse. The result has been the destruction of property, the dissolution of longstanding careers, and the dissemination of fear throughout campus and especially within its ranking officers. Even the police are afraid to act. The majority on campus is being divided, tagged, and bagged as the perpetrators of crimes (racists, rapists, etc.). While the characterization of these crimes runs roughshod over the facts and statistics, the fringe bullies push forward, isolating and destroying anything or anyone in their path. They stamp their feet and scream like toddlers, finger-pointing manufactured offenses. Anyone not adhering to their proclamations is inherently guilty. However, the underlying cause of all of this is as simple as it is obvious: These student protesters are for the most part not prepared well enough for higher learning, and society at large continues to ignore the root problem.

Welcome to the Age of Ignorance, a malignant tumor ironically embedded within the Information Age. We have easy access to science, history, and art, but most of us hyper focus on ephemeral cultural pursuits that add little value to progress yet wield untold levels of impact on the course of society. We’ve turned our eye from the ball and the need to bring society as a whole forward. We lack even basic survival skills, much less the fruits of higher learning, and depend solely on corporate streams for staples and narrow unvetted avenues for information. We have all the mental worth of automatons and the stability of shifting sand. No wonder so many of us are unhappy and scared.

“Everywhere we look at present we see something new trying to be born. A pregnant, swollen world writhing in labor, and everywhere untrained quacks are officiating as obstetricians. These quacks say that the only way the new can be born is by a Caesarean operation. They lust to rip the belly of the world open.” – Eric Hoffer

Mac Donald begins her thoughtful treatise with “The Hysterical Campus,” although the entire book could’ve been dubbed the same. Campus life has been turned on its head by small interest groups managing to rule the provost’s office—actually blackmailing a frightened and misguided academic hierarchy into submission. We saw this during the 1960s, which may have been the historical beginning of the movement that strangles academic reason today and threatens the entire institution.

“What the intellectual craves in his innermost being is to turn the whole globe into a classroom and the world’s population into a class of docile pupils hanging onto the words of the chosen teacher.” –Eric Hoffer

When tyrannical groups seize power, dissent is silenced by any means and a so-called enlightened way of thinking is taught with equal force. This is happening right now. These protestors, which typically believe they are elevating thought for the first time in civilization, reveal their core ignorance. They are beating the well-worn path of socialist incursion. It begins with the drumbeats of group think and ends with violence and ultimately the transformation of free thought into a mortal sin. These dangerous groups, narcissistic by nature, cannot view themselves within time, because for the most part they lack even a basic education in world history.

“…liberty is meaningless where the right to utter one’s thoughts and opinions has ceased to exist. That, of all rights, is the dread of tyrants.” – Frederick Douglass

The Diversity Delusion is a difficult read, not because the prose is challenging, but rather it identifies damaged social structures as the root cause of inferior education while undressing political correctness as the seed of campus dystopia now spilling over to contemporary society. Working people once giggled at academia’s labored and awkward striving to modify thought and language, but it’s no longer funny. Formerly a place where great minds convened to prove their mettle, academia today often resembles a socialist retraining camp. It’s a place where the best intention—to be inclusive—has metastasized into fascist singular thought. This is hardly an environment to foster creativity, much less bring the disciplines forward.

The author restates the original campus mission, which includes the necessity to educate all who approach higher learning. It’s a societal sin to abandon eager minds. Clearly many of the rioting students were given a different education and a sure-fire path to failure when dropped in the mix with students who gained more advanced preparation for college. The answer isn’t dumbing down the disciplines to appease these students, and it certainly isn’t to vilify the luckier students with a suite of theoretical and frankly racist labels ending in “…aggression” and “…privilege,” as is taking place today. Warning, this bad campus drama has already arrived at the office, within government, and amid various public forums.

Making amends to these students could involve a one- or two-year college primer path, so that willing students can level themselves to the course of study they desire. A society’s most important resource is its people. We need everyone, not the marginalization of disadvantaged individuals or the vilification of those more fortunate. Those reactions are the lazy answers to the problem. They are the uninspired and ultimately damaging paths to take. Unfortunately, the protesting academic body have labeled the effort to expand their knowledge as “racist” thought.

Mac Donald’s writing is that of a traditional journalist who reports events, supports it with actual fact, and then layers with commentary wrought through her personal view. Her book is brave, and the research goes deeper than just academia, but it will no doubt be attacked by the Age of Ignorance’s foot soldiers, who claim to adhere to no religion but burn with an orthodoxy as hot as a fundamentalist at a revival and who sport every attribute of its righteous tunnel vision. Either group would proudly stand in a crowded room with a finger in the air and exclaim, “I am the wisest. I know the one truth. I am the way.” History burgeons with these reckless clowns. They are the fools who have started wars and led entire societies beneath brutal regimes, each expounding the virtues of their idealistic utopias. Enough is enough. Only logic and courage will combat these self-absorbed bullies. Mac Donald sounds a clarion call for the knowing.

RECOMMENDED by the US Review

Radioactive: A Tale of Love and Fallout

by Lauren Redniss
It Books

book review by Christopher Klim

“We lived in preoccupation as complete as that of a dream.”

Before STEM Programs, before Title 9, before the Suffragettes, Marie “Madame” Curie blazed a path for science and women that marks history. Pioneering research in radioactivity—a word coined by her—Curie discovered two elements (Polonium, named for her beloved Poland, and Radium). In doing so, she established a new science and became the first female professor at the Sorbonne. She was the first woman to win the Nobel Prize, and the only person to win it twice for science. For a scientist, filling in even one square on the periodic table is a big deal, and she discovered two. Her research sprawls through chemistry, physics, and medicine to this day, including its long-lasting cultural implications. She ultimately sacrificed her life, dying from radiation exposure prior to a true understanding of the risk. Effectively she pioneered this research as well.

Curie is a progenitor of the Nuclear Age, and the book branches out tangentially in subject matter, never leaving the realm of radiation and its effect upon society. In addition to Curie and her beloved co-scientist Pierre, alternate voices speak throughout the narrative, such as friend and colleague Albert Einstein or the man who dug nuclear bomb test site tunnels in Nevada. Some of these witnesses to radiation knew Curie; others only benefited or saw their life redirected by her discoveries. Together they quilt a complete picture, not only of Curie’s life and work, but of the way we live now.

Few books form a lasting record. Insightful, gorgeous, a luxury of thought and sight, Redniss’ book delivers one such gift. It tantalizes both the scientist and the layman with gorgeous illustrations, accessible science, and personal reflections of the great scientist. It steps back to take a wider view, examining the course of history through radiation, and it’s bound together with an artist’s touch. It’s the kind of book that makes you think who should be awarded it as a gift.

RECOMMENDED by the US Review

The Book Killers: Dead Dialogue

In this ongoing series, Christopher Klim, author and senior editor of the US Review of Books, takes a look at common errors that undermine books.

There are many ways to deliver dead dialogue upon arrival. Flabby, unfocused, and unnatural conversation between characters will kill a book in the best places. Certain readers gloss over narratives, but bear down on the stretches of dialogue. It’s like bugging a nearby conversation, hoping to hear special information uncovered, but poor dialogue disappoints every time, and shakes believability in the characters. Let’s take a look at ways to strengthen dialogue.

Let Them Speak for Themselves

Forced or unnatural conversations betray both the character and writer. When a writer stuffs words and information into the mouths of those in the scene, he creates a bad drama on stage for the purposes of transporting the story. Before the characters can even talk, the writer must understand who they are. When well-drawn characters enter a scene, they begin speaking for themselves. Their cadence and word choice will be a product of their histories and what they desire. They’ll reveal secrets in the subtext. As Robert Stone once said, “All dialogue is a conversation with the soul.”

Keep It Real, But…

While strong characters have a unique manner of speech, too much of it offers speed bumps in the exchange. It forces the reader to constantly interpret to discover the inner meaning of their words. Consider sprinkling dialect and inflection indicators throughout the conversation, instead of marking every instance. Readers will begin hearing the unique voice, without the authorial stage direction. The same goes for dialogue modifiers—those fantastic adverbs that describe their tone. Well-written dialogue wrought through great characters and circumstance will imply the tone without having to describe it.

Tighten Up

In real life, not all conversation has a purpose. We sit over drinks or on the phone and pass the time, revealing nuggets of life along the way. Perhaps, all we gather is a sense of how the other person is feeling at the moment. In a written work, idle conversation is death for the narrative flow, when it should form some of the most interesting stretches.  Great authors effectively enter conversation during its key moments and exit when nothing important is said or when the central message has been delivered. Even within those moments, they trim out the fat, employing color only for impact and to illuminate circumstance and character.

Hear the Voices

Now, we’re dropping back before the first bit of dialogue is written, before the first character exists. Prior to drawing great characters and letting them speak, writers must become a student of voice—both specifically and in general. Everyone speaks differently and at different moments. They reveal the truth on different levels. Eavesdrop on people talking. Be quiet and listen. Learn to hear not only how people speak, but the subtext that emerges within the conversation. For example, liars or those hiding information will say much in the unsaid. Fearful or grieving people will skirt that which affects them most.

To a skilled writer, dialogue arrives fluidly. She knows how and what the characters must say. Others have an inexplicable natural talent for delivering stunning conversation on the page. Many biographers select key moments to insert a phrase or passage that brings the figure to life. This occurs also in fiction, although generally on a wider palette where exact quotations are not required. In all narrative forms, dialogue is one of the writer’s greatest tools, which cannot be overexploited, but can be poorly employed.

Next in The Book Killers series: Wandering Plots

Previously in The Book Killers series: Weak Point of View

 

 

The Book Killers: Weak Point of View

The Book Killers: Weak Point of View

In this ongoing series, Christopher Klim, author and senior editor of the US Review of Books, takes a look at common errors that undermine books.

Much regarding point of view (POV) is the artist’s decision. A good choice can add salient new insight to a familiar subject, as seen for example in Picasso’s cubism or Patti Smith’s Instagram account. In both, they don’t necessarily discuss themselves, but over the course of time, we learn about the artist and more importantly their subject matter. In literature, the POV is the person or thing guiding the narrative, and the subject is the consequence of their focus.

POV comes in a variety of shades and colors. Simply put, the story narrative will appear in either first person (I, we), second person (you), or third person (he, she, they). Everything else is a hybrid of these three basic modes. POV might vary within a given work, but each POV requires the reader to suspend disbelief differently in order to engage with the narrative. First person asks the reader to get inside the skin of the narrator, second person asks the reader to be the narrator, and third person provides distance from the narrator.

Second person is the trickiest, requiring the reader to relate to the narrator at least in a general sense. In contrast, most readers could wear the skin of a serial killer in first person, since the reader understands that he/she is secretly slipping inside the abhorrent mind of the narrator, but a second person narrative asks the reader to be the serial killer, which is hopefully a no-go area for most readers. Finally, third person can be described—and perhaps over-described by literature and writing teachers—as providing a variety of distances from the subject, ranging from a nearby viewer, who reveals what he/she sees, hears, or induces, to an omnipresent seer, who can relate everything from the minds of the players to that which has happened off-screen and any point on the timeline.

In all POVs, the narrator is further moderated by reliability. As with real people, the narrator is effected by his/her own past and thought patterns, and therefore interprets events through this lens. The narrator might also be self-deluded for a variety of reasons (i.e. fear, conceit, mental illness, etc.). When intervieweing people at a crime scene, investigators will hear vastly different accounts of the same event. A narrator who runs askew of the facts is referred to as an “unreliable narrator.” Everything from the events, and especially the reasons for them, cannot be trusted from an unreliable narrator, and the reader may only learn this over time. Lolita‘s self-deluded child predator, Humbert Humbert, is a prime example of the unreliable narrator. Nabokov, helped by the fact that Lolita is no angel, manages dark irony through Humbolt’s ultimately pathetic voice.

Regardless of your choice of POV, two factors emerge to support the work: authenticity and saliency.

Authenticity is not necessarily reliability. Authentic narrators involve accuracy in the character’s portrayal. An obsessed narrator, as Lolita‘s Humbert, or a mentally ill narrator, as in Everything Burns’s pyromaniac Oscar Van Hise, form gripping reads. Neither of these narrators are reliable, but they are true to their deluded selves and draw razor sharp accuracy of events. Both characters form the archetype of a villain, which can be useful narration for the story. Therefore, their characters are authentic, holding the reader in place and heightening the drama. Deriving authenticity in the narrator is not only essential, but it requires deep understanding of the character. An unreliable narrator can be a wonderful way to commute the story, but an inauthentic character portrayal will ground the story to a halt.

On the other hand, saliency in the POV character involves that which stands head and shoulders above all else. This speaks directly to the choice of POV character. The modern world presents a great deal of navel gazing characters, and therefore the popular voice in literature today is predominantly a deep first person narrative, whether it be reliable or not. Here we follow the slipstream of consciousness—that ebb and flow of self-awareness—but is first person the best choice for the story? Sometimes it’s more effective to take a step away within a third person narration, allowing a wider view of events while avoiding unnecessary and uninteresting intimate details. In first person, the author tends to have to account for every moment in time, often moving forward by only breaking from the scene. Meanwhile, third person allows for the easy passage of time, skipping around the timeline, events, and details as needed.

Which choice of POV character is the best? This selection is not always clear. Changing the POV provides a different level of experience, maturity, and perspective. What is the story trying to accomplish? What is the story’s theme, tone, or genre? How much does the narrator need to know or get involved? Each of these questions must be answered before the narrator takes control. A story crashes when a POV character suddenly narrates out of character. She may know things she couldn’t. He may appear at a moment where he shouldn’t. He or she may do or feel as they would not. Forced POV is as obvious as an awkward metaphor.

There are many ways to select a weak POV. Most recently, there’s been a preponderance of a child’s POV dominating adult novels. While this might work for the short form, often a better choice exists with an adult POV character. Even if events surrounding a child are dramatic, a child’s ability to interpret events is limited. Remember, readers must not only be compelled to engage the narrative, but the reader needs to be convinced to stay with it.

Study those who have gone before. The choice of Lolita as the predominant character in Lolita would have stifled the narrative and eliminated the irony. The story would have been different, pathetic even. Never revealing Oscar Van Hise’s motivations for arson would have reduced both the depth and urgency of Everything Burn‘s drama. Van Hise’s reclusive, secretive nature would have been impossible to capture, and he’d be a two-dimensional antagonist, found so popularly in television crime dramas. In each, the POV character was vital to what the author was trying to accomplish beyond the events of the story alone. The reader is left feeling and thinking in a particular way. The POV characters took them to those heights, or lows, in an authentic and natural way.

In the end, art is a dialogue between the artist and viewer. Otherwise the work derives little lasting meaning. In all art dialogues, the secrets of the artist are laid bare, but we are not typically focused on them. To paraphrase seminal playwright Arthur Miller: Our best work occurs where we are most naked. As the viewer of the work, we delve into the core of the narrative as dictated by the POV and subconsciously digest the author’s insights and bits of the author as well. In the best of art, wrought through a transporting POV, we leave with new insights of our own.

Next in The Book Killers series: Dead Dialogue

Previously in The Book Killers series: Unfocused Openings

The Russian Hoax

by Gregg Jarrett
Broadside Books

book review by Christopher Klim

“…based on this record, no other conclusion is reasonably supportable.”

Thinking people remember where they were when former FBI Director James Comey gave his famous July 5, 2016 news conference absolving then-candidate Hillary Clinton of criminal behavior regarding her mishandling of secure government documents on an insecure server while Secretary of State and then covering up her error in judgment after it became evident. Let’s pause for a moment and think about that sentence: A U.S. Secretary of State placed an insecure server in her private residence, passing countless classified documents during a four-year period, and then attempted to hide the fact when it was exposed, and yet no clear crime was identified by the U.S. Justice Department, of which the FBI is an entity. How could this possibly not be a problem or a clear violation of the Espionage Act, if not obstruction of justice at the very least?

As the server story unraveled, along with the working machinations of the Clinton Foundation, more unprosecuted crimes emerged regarding their conduct. The Clintons, who have been given a pass for decades for questionable dealings with the simplistic excuse of merely toeing the line of the law, have evidently been caught way over the line in a number of areas. Classified documents were handled outside of all established protocol, exposing national secrets and safety to foreign entities. During this investigation, details of the Clinton Foundation’s quid pro quo dealings saw the light of day. While these facts were being uncovered, other U.S. citizens were being prosecuted for similar espionage violations and public officials were being jury-trialed for similar abuses of power for personal gain. The power of the office of the Secretary of State does not excuse or lessen these crimes; in many ways, it makes them worse.

Clinton’s e-mail server is the starting point for MSNBC and Fox News anchor and legal analyst Gregg Jarrett’s clear, insightful, and stunning exposé of the entire “Russian collusion” fraud, as prosecuted daily in the news media. Through heavily footnoted and supported facts, as opposed to the media opinion du jour, Jarrett reveals the major crimes of the Clintons, the cover-up, and then the Russian hoax designed to damage a political candidate and his ensuing presidency through an unverified, at times comical, document known as “the dossier.”

What is the dossier and how was it used? Jarrett summarizes the key points that no one denies. Here’s what we know: The dossier is a Clinton-funded collection of allegations against candidate Donald Trump, assembled from “raw” Russian intelligence through former British spy, Christopher Steele. The document claims that Trump associates Carter Page and Paul Manafort met with Russian agents to gather information against Hillary Clinton. It further asserts that Trump had been groomed for political office by Vladimir Putin. While all parties deny these charges, it is important to know that none of its claims have been verified to date, no one in both the FBI and CIA bothered to verify them, and when placed under oath in British court, Christopher Steele admitted that the dossier was essentially bogus.

Steele likely believed the dossier would only be used as a political campaign smear tactic, while he collected a multi-million dollar paycheck for his work. He couldn’t have possibly known that the unverifiable dossier, because it appears to be entirely false, would eventually become the centerpiece for obtaining a FISA warrant against a presidential candidate, and then the impetus for a special council run by Robert Muller and his band of avowed Clinton supporters. It’s important also to keep in mind that while charges have been leveled on Trump’s associates, not a single charge has been leveled regarding so-called Russian collusion. It’s also important to understand that Russian collusion in of itself is not a crime. So what are we doing here?

The entire Russian hoax has a secondary political function beyond an unconstitutional attempt to unseat a duly elected president. Through the use of a willing media, it serves as a distraction to the Clinton’s, the FBI’s, and the Justice Department’s clear violations of the law. It is unlawful to misrepresent facts or lie to a judge in order to obtain a warrant. It is unlawful to deny a citizen’s Constitutional rights. It is unlawful to use a government office for personal or political benefit. It is unlawful to mishandle and expose privileged and secure government documents. It is unlawful to obstruct justice. FBI Director James Comey, CIA Director John Brennan, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, Intelligence Chief James Clapper, Bruce Ohr, and the notorious Peter Strzok and his girlfriend, Lisa Page, appear to have done much of this and more. The web of lies and people involved is bigger, and given its scope and the evidence uncovered to date, it’s become impossible to believe that President Obama and his inner circle, including National Security Advisor Susan Rice, had no understanding of their actions.

Be angry about what these arrogant people have done. They’ve justified breaking the law in order to protect their ideals and way of life. This is what happens when diversity of opinion is actively rooted out and group think takes over. It’s fascism in its purest form. Government has been poisoned by group think. We see it in the news and all over the Internet. Group think always leads to pervasive ignorance, while purporting to be the wisest entity in the room.

While the country is saddled with a demoralizing special council which appears to have the sole purpose of unearthing any dirt whatsoever on President Trump—anyone remember Ken Starr—former FBI Director James Comey has since gone on a sycophantic book tour, maintaining his innocence with palpable doses of self-righteousness. On one hand, you can hardly blame him. It appears that he was influenced by Clinton-beholden and then-U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch to support one political candidate by forgiving her of criminal behavior, and then launched an unfounded investigation against another to destroy him. He’s gone too far down the road to perdition to turn around, and his commitment to a life-defining, career-destroying, and eminently corrupt path is clear. However if justice still exists in the U.S., he and the aforementioned government officials will face a jury of peers for various charges.

Jarrett’s book is perhaps the most insightful and clearest description of what has happened and where we are right now within this unholy mess. The United States needs its justice department cleaned up. Our system of laws badly relies on it. Jarrett helps shine a light.

RECOMMENDED by the US Review