People who like comic books, might appreciate this book.
No. I've very much enjoyed other Michael Palmer books.
He's very good at making the different characters stand out distinctly.
This was just too much like a comic book. The characters are, at best, two dimensional. The protagonists are way too competent and successful, given their respective backgrounds. Though Palmer is a physician, the scanty medical elements are poorly handled. One key element is the death of someone from having their spinal cord transected by a quick head movement; it's never explained what could cause this. He also gives the impression that Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia is a quickly fatal disease, when, in fact, it has a greater than 90% 5 year survival rate.
Entertaining adventure of a laid-off Wall St. Attorney, still young enough to find her inner idealism. But credibility stretches thin as big law, big coal, and all big corporations are relentlessly evil and have unlimited access to the power of the Feds. Just a little over the top.
There were many important excepts from The Republic, Utopia, The Communist Manifesto, Second Treatise on Government and The Spirit of the Laws. It provided a nice review of the essence of these works.
I wouldn't recommend the audio version. I don't think that anyone could have read these classic excerpts in an attention grabbing way. Having said that, I think the reader (Grupper) could have done a better job of letting us know when a quote was being read.
I enjoyed both Capitol Murder and Capital Threat, but this book was a huge disappointment. The plot is ridiculously unbelievable, and the book is laced with Democrat "talking points" and "big lies." The book revolves around a proposed Constitutional Amendment that would allow a committee to suspend the Bill of Rights if it (that same committee) declared a state of emergency. The arguments in the book about the amendment were shallow, to say the least.
For such a short book, it was remarkably repetitive. The contradiction between Jefferson's advocacy of individual rights and ownership of slaves was dealt with ad nauseum; yet there were no new insights. The author acknowledged that there was criticism of the view that Jefferson fathered Sally Heming's kids, but, without examining the arguments, seemed to assume that he did.
The reader should know that this book deals almost exclusively with the presidential years (perhaps that's the intent of this series of books; I've only read this one).
Report Inappropriate Content