Taste Top 100: PIE MAKER CO

Taste Top 100: PIE MAKER CO

  • Downloads：1908
  • Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
  • Create Date：2021-04-10 08:51:40
  • Update Date：2025-09-06
  • Status：finish
  • Author：taste.com.au
  • ISBN：1460759133
  • Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
  • Download

Summary

Has there ever been a kitchen appliance that we've loved as much as the pie maker？ It's taken our kitchens by storm。 At the same time， our air fryers and sausage roll maker recipes are quickly gaining all-time favourite status， while the jaffle maker and waffle maker have been on our must-have rotation list for years。

In Pie Maker & Co you'll find every recipe you need for all your favourite appliances。 With 100 recipes covering both sweet and savoury， this is your go-to cookbook where every dish is as easy as。。。 well。。。 pie！

Pie Maker & Co includes recipes for the:

Pie maker

Sausage roll maker

Air fryer

Jaffle maker

Waffle maker

From pie maker caramel custard filled doughnuts and pie maker chicken kiev patties， to cheesy maple bacon jaffles and dim sim sausage rolls， there are loads of great recipes to cook up for family and friends。 Plus， there are tips on how to adapt a recipe for your appliance， nutritional information and reviews from home cooks just like you。

Download

Reviews

Amelia Ansell ，

Reading it made me SO angry--Fuck Mitch McConnell and every other senator not in favor of abolishing the filibuster。 Good work， Jentleson， now I need to hit my head against a wall。 Love the book though！

Les ，

Excellent history of how the procedures of the senate have been changed over the years。 If you are interested in history or government， you will enjoy this book。

Josh Peterson ，

Depressing， but well researched， it left me wanting more。 I was excited to read a “short” history book after the multiple 800+ page books I read in 2020 and the start of 2021。 But I wanted more。 More on specific stories that got passing mention， more on now this just continues to happen， etc。 Don’t get me wrong， it really good。 But there is more I would have read。 Still， infuriating。 7。5/10

Ellen Shachter ，

You've got to read this book on the origins and history of the filibuster。 Any doubts about the need to change Senate rules around the filibuster will completely vanish。 You've got to read this book on the origins and history of the filibuster。 Any doubts about the need to change Senate rules around the filibuster will completely vanish。 。。。more

Dayna ，

Great read about a vital topic。 He toured me through the history of the Senate filibuster and I found it fascinating。

Glenda ，

I’ve been a “political junkie” most of my life snd thought I understood the workings of our bicameral system fairly well， but “Kill Switch” reveals all I did not know。 Only when we learn all the causes at work in our dysfunctional senate can we learn how to fix it， and fix it we must if our democracy is to survive。 While the author lays blame at the feet of both democrats and republicans， it is the systemic racism designed by republicans post WW II and democrats in the 19th century who have done I’ve been a “political junkie” most of my life snd thought I understood the workings of our bicameral system fairly well， but “Kill Switch” reveals all I did not know。 Only when we learn all the causes at work in our dysfunctional senate can we learn how to fix it， and fix it we must if our democracy is to survive。 While the author lays blame at the feet of both democrats and republicans， it is the systemic racism designed by republicans post WW II and democrats in the 19th century who have done the greatest damage: Calhoun， Russell， McConnell， to name a few。 Lyndon Johnson merits some blame as does Harry Reed， but nothing compared to those who have nurtured the idea of minority rule。 。。。more

Anthony ，

This was a bad book。 There is just no getting around it。 I gave it two stars because it contains accurate information， but I was honestly surprised to learn that the author is actually an active columnist。 His writing certainly does not indicate as much。Adam Jentleson is a former senate aide， as such， you might expect from him a typical polemic or a book that leans heavily on his insider knowledge from time spent on Capitol Hill。 This is definitely a polemic， but he tries very hard over the cour This was a bad book。 There is just no getting around it。 I gave it two stars because it contains accurate information， but I was honestly surprised to learn that the author is actually an active columnist。 His writing certainly does not indicate as much。Adam Jentleson is a former senate aide， as such， you might expect from him a typical polemic or a book that leans heavily on his insider knowledge from time spent on Capitol Hill。 This is definitely a polemic， but he tries very hard over the course of the 360 or so pages （about 340 too many） to be either a historian or a Political Scientist。 He is neither。 The best parts of this book are the the first half of the first chapter， when he recounts the history of the filibuster， and the conclusion， in which he proposes a solution to the problem of the filibuster。 This could have been done in an 8，000 word article in The Atlantic。I found it difficult to surmise the intended audience of this book。 I believe the author's purpose was to explain the filibuster， declare it bad， and then propose a fix。 But he spent much of the middle chapters telling mini-biographies of every politician who ever used the filibuster。 This might have been interesting if done by a proper historian， but Jentleson simply excerpted memoir after memoir adding next to nothing in the way of synthesis or context。 The reader would have been better off with a simple reading list。The lack of both synthesis and context is really the overriding theme of this book。 This book is a polemic。 It has an argument。 I think the author wants you to believe he is simply a detached historian or political scientist， but his view from nowhere approach leaves the reader lost。 In the absence of expertise， Jentleson could have offered opinions or enlightened experience， but he fails to do either。 Instead， he enumerates facts and then leaves them hanging without explanation。 What is the point of writing this book if he won't connect the dots for the reader？ Moreover， the premise of the book itself is flawed and again raises the question of who its audience is。 He hints at this once with the aphorism "Where you stand depends on where you sit，" which is perhaps better stated "all process arguments are made in bad faith。" Rather than simply accepting that process arguments are always made in bad faith， Jentleson take the time to rebut arguments that no one was ever convicted about to begin with。 He should know better， and he probably does。 This book does nothing to arm opponents of the filibuster because its proponents argue in bad faith and know it。 Nor will it change the minds of filibuster supporters because they don't actually believe their justifications。 So for whom is the book written？ Also， who is the reader who cares enough about this topic but still needs a remedial lesson on the Federalist Papers？ Who is this book for？I have no idea。In its defense， some of the stories in the book are interesting， and those that are original to the author would probably sound great in a memoir about his own career。 Those stories about others probably are great in the memoirs from which he excerpted them。 。。。more

Hannah ，

I read this at the recommendation of Senator Ed Markey and was not disappointed。 Although I knew much of the content it was nice to see it all laid out neatly。 This is a really good persuasion tool for ending the filibuster。

Joel Mathis ，

I was broadly aware of how the filibuster had been weaponized to virtually eliminate the functioning of the Senate， but this book gives some details。 Recommended。

Allison Meakem ，

A very astute analysis of all the ways the Senate is messed up and why that matters。 I don't think I was able to enjoy "Kill Switch" as much as I would have in the Before Times （the pandemic and constant deluge of bad news has rendered me somewhat nonfiction-averse）， but I nevertheless found its conclusions to be quite compelling。 The first half of the book—history of the filibuster—was much harder to get through than the latter half—which discussed the modern-day distortions of what Jentleson c A very astute analysis of all the ways the Senate is messed up and why that matters。 I don't think I was able to enjoy "Kill Switch" as much as I would have in the Before Times （the pandemic and constant deluge of bad news has rendered me somewhat nonfiction-averse）， but I nevertheless found its conclusions to be quite compelling。 The first half of the book—history of the filibuster—was much harder to get through than the latter half—which discussed the modern-day distortions of what Jentleson calls the "superminority"—probably because anything that deals with Senate procedures is inherently very technical。 Still， those technicalities are worth fleshing out when what's at stake is literally life or death。 I've considered the filibuster is a Jim Crow relic for a while; what was new to me is that the filibuster is the reason we still have the Electoral College （and， by extension， had Bush Jr。 and Trump presidencies） AND don't have a public health insurance option。 Outrageous。 。。。more

Vince ，

The timing of Kill Switch could not have been better as the Senate looks at the possibility of reforming or dumping the filibuster。 Jentleson's career as speechwriter for John Kerry and John Edwards and， most significantly， as Deputy Chief of Staff for Harry Reid when Reid was Senate Majority Leader perfectly positioned him to write this illuminating piece of non-fiction。 Kill Switch traces the history of the Senate from its origin as an intentionally deliberative body that provided the minority The timing of Kill Switch could not have been better as the Senate looks at the possibility of reforming or dumping the filibuster。 Jentleson's career as speechwriter for John Kerry and John Edwards and， most significantly， as Deputy Chief of Staff for Harry Reid when Reid was Senate Majority Leader perfectly positioned him to write this illuminating piece of non-fiction。 Kill Switch traces the history of the Senate from its origin as an intentionally deliberative body that provided the minority with ample opportunity for debate while supporting the foundational principle of majority rule to the modern day Gomorrah where legislation goes to die。 Embedded in this history is the innovation of the filibuster and its mutations; from the adoption of unlimited debate in 1841 to the debacle of Senate Rule 22 in 1917 to the cloture threshold of 60 votes that is the essence of minority rule。 As the primary tool to sustain the strictures of Jim Crow， block civil rights legislation for decades， and kill any legislation that the minority opposes， the filibuster is long overdue for reformation， which Jentleson makes quite clear。 The book is well-researched， wonderfully written， and offers a abundance of colorful anecdotes adds to the enjoyment of the read。 It leans left in its point of view but does not stray from fact， important to note in the age of proliferating misinformation。 A must read for those interested in the functioning of our government and how we got to the stagnation we see today。 。。。more

Mark ，

No matter what you think of Jentleson's premise， that the current Senate rules give undue power to a conservative minority， this is an interesting history of the Senate that gives us the roadmap of how the current rules came to be。 No matter what you think of Jentleson's premise， that the current Senate rules give undue power to a conservative minority， this is an interesting history of the Senate that gives us the roadmap of how the current rules came to be。 。。。more

Diogenes ，

“The Senate is so broken that it is easy to write it off as irredeemable。 We are now at the endpoint of a process that started over 150 years ago。 In the nineteenth century， obstructionist minorities invented the filibuster to give themselves the power to defy the majority。 In the twentieth century， under the banner of ‘unlimited debate，’ southerners made the filibuster into a supermajority hurdle。 In the postwar period and into the twenty-first century， Lyndon Johnson and Harry Reid created lea “The Senate is so broken that it is easy to write it off as irredeemable。 We are now at the endpoint of a process that started over 150 years ago。 In the nineteenth century， obstructionist minorities invented the filibuster to give themselves the power to defy the majority。 In the twentieth century， under the banner of ‘unlimited debate，’ southerners made the filibuster into a supermajority hurdle。 In the postwar period and into the twenty-first century， Lyndon Johnson and Harry Reid created leadership structures capable of making the formerly leaderless institution march in lockstep behind a leader’s agenda。 And in recent years， Mitch McConnell paired those tools of control with the filibuster to give a reactionary， WWAC [wealthy， white， anti-choice conservatives] minority veto power over everything the majority attempts to accomplish。 In our era of polarization and negative partisanship， conservatives can use McConnell’s playbook in perpetuity with no fear of political consequences， and every expectation of reward。 The outlook for the Senate， and for our democracy， is grim” （pp。 269-70）。 Capital Hill insider Adam Jentleson gives the reader a bit more depth and detail into how the Legislative branch of the United States has become what it’s become over the last 150 years， but most especially over the past 40 years—a militantly tribalistic tit-for-tat kindergarten pandering to special interests through negative partisanship， but this book （and its 120 pages of endnotes） doesn’t give me the confidence that the system can be fixed。 I’m a Nobody， and naturally time will tell。 Most of you reading this already know the system is horribly corrupted; otherwise， you’re praying at the altar of Fox News， or Breitbart， or InfoWars， or One America， or the alternate-reality game of QAnon， or some other shameless propaganda machine for either filthy rich libertarians， or easily brainwashed plebs。 At the time of this writing， according to The Brennan Center for Justice （https://www。brennancenter。org/）， there are currently 165 voter restriction bills proposed in 33 states since after NOV 2020。 The GOP is doubling down on the game with overt discrimination laws that impact the poor and “people of color” most of all。 As Charles M。 Blow declared in his manifesto The Devil You Know， the ending of systemic racism begins at the local level， the state level， and our congressional leaders。 Jentleson illustrates how the Senate has become the “kill switch” on so much progressive movement。 The For the People Act will help curtail draconian state laws while “the Left” mobilizes the marginalized to stand up and rail against their oppression， ousting the bought-out bigots and overwhelming the “redneck” vote clinging to their unread bibles and well-oiled assault rifles。 “According to a 2019 New York Times analysis of data collected by the Manifesto Project， a group that tracks party-policy positions around the globe， the modern Republican Party is more extreme than Britain’s Independence Party and France’s National Rally party， both of which are far-right populist parties that verge on neofascism。 Ideological polarization has been asymmetric， with the Republican Party moving much farther right than the Democratic Party has moved to the left; the same study found that the Democratic Party still aligns closely with mainstream liberal parties” （p。 152）。 Of course this couldn’t happen without large rivers of opaque money pouring in after Citizens United， and ranks of selfish， racist ideologues marching through such “think tanks” as the John Birch Society and the Federalist Society， the Tea Party being bankrolled by Koch Industries， and of course the rise of demagogic Trump who， supported by so many duplicitous sycophants， toyed with clown-car authoritarianism。 When Jentleson says the future of this country is grim， I painfully agree。 Trumpism isn’t going away quietly， and the delusional GOP has been undermined by its own power-mad mania， desperately grasping for any scheme that will keep them in power。 The entire political system needs restructuring。 Jentleson gives his advice， which seems naively optimistic （a parliamentary system of open debate？）， so I’ll jump aboard his train of thought and offer my own wish list: Eliminate the Electoral College System （one citizen， one ballot， one vote—majority wins）; make Election Day a federal holiday; create a simple， secure， and uniform voting system that every citizen has access to （digital means can work）; have an accountability system in place for Congressional corruption and define corruption in lawful terms， with just punishments to include imprisonment; have every 18-year-old register to vote， like the Draft but obviously for everyone; grant statehood to D。C。， Puerto Rico， and American Samoa while we’re at it; reorganize the congressional system to better reflect the population （not just 2 senators per state）; overturn Citizens United and limit how much money goes into elections; have congressional bills be simple， one-topic requests， not convoluted tomes packed with pork， waste， and graft; if we’re REALLY wishing here I’d also say eliminate political parties altogether and let’s vote on individuals based on his/her resume， tax records， and bank statements—not the mindless manure that slithers through their lips and whatever catchy slogans they concoct （congressional folks spend HALF THEIR TIME working on the next election cycle—how about they work 90% on their f-ing jobs legislating？; it looks like almost $14 BILLION was spent on the 2020 elections—what if that money was better served going into K-12 education， or a stronger， cheaper healthcare system， or a college-for-all concept？ 。 。 。 ugh， I’m free-falling down a bottomless rabbit-hole。 Grim。Jelani Cobb of The New Yorker highlights the likely schism impacting the GOP and illustrating the ephemeral nature of political parties overall （https://www。newyorker。com/magazine/20。。。）。 Sam Levine of The Guardian gives a good telling of Jim Crow 2。0 right now （https://www。theguardian。com/us-news/2。。。）。 Nothing is guaranteed in this era， the seesaw will swing Right again， and we cannot relent in the combat to come。 。。。more

David Cooke ，

Good diagnostic summary of dysfunction for political novicesThis book is a pretty solid summary of the literature on the Senate and the filibuster -- it's not covering a lot of new ground， but it does so in an exceptionally readable way。 The one major area it tries to capture in a new way is probably its weakest point， namely the way that leadership has consolidated power。 While it does a better job with McConnell， I think surprisingly its coverage of Reid's role was surprisingly scattershot。 I Good diagnostic summary of dysfunction for political novicesThis book is a pretty solid summary of the literature on the Senate and the filibuster -- it's not covering a lot of new ground， but it does so in an exceptionally readable way。 The one major area it tries to capture in a new way is probably its weakest point， namely the way that leadership has consolidated power。 While it does a better job with McConnell， I think surprisingly its coverage of Reid's role was surprisingly scattershot。 I think the thesis comes through， but the evidence is more anecdotal and feels less rigorous。I think its concluding chapter does a very good job establishing what is becoming a common set of reforms， and leading with the 1969-1970 electoral college story is actually a great context for such reform。 This chapter by itself feels like it could even be pulled out pretty easily for folks that recognize the dysfunction and want to know how to move forward - while it will likely not convince the political conservative class （and may even reinforce the reticence）， I think even reasonable moderates could see the wisdom of such reforms， and it gives me the slimmest sense of hope。The other strong point in this book for me is the Madisonian context reinforced throughout， but especially in the first half。 Reminding folks of the Founders' intents isn't always a compelling argument， but it really does provide a tremendous amount of pushback on the traditionalists。A good book for politically inclined folks wanting a clear cut easy read。 Not for experts， I don't think， but I thought the reference list one of the more helpful， so now I've got a few more to add to bulk up the knowledge bank。 。。。more

V ，

An interesting look at the perennially-broken Senate。 In trying to prevent the unfair tyranny of the minority by the majority， the framers made possible the even more unfair tyranny of the majority by the minority that has persisted since the 19th century。 Jentleson explains why obstructionist tactics are a more useful tool to conservative lawmakers （law-preventers， rather） as opposed to their progressive counterparts。 The fact that the Senate by its very composition is already unfairly represen An interesting look at the perennially-broken Senate。 In trying to prevent the unfair tyranny of the minority by the majority， the framers made possible the even more unfair tyranny of the majority by the minority that has persisted since the 19th century。 Jentleson explains why obstructionist tactics are a more useful tool to conservative lawmakers （law-preventers， rather） as opposed to their progressive counterparts。 The fact that the Senate by its very composition is already unfairly representative of the population at large makes the practice of filibustering even more odious。 Some of the lawyerly rationalizations for ways to deploy the filibuster were not spelled out explicitly enough for me--because it is， at its heart， bullshit， I wonder if clear explanations are even possible。 I also thought the organization of the book was a bit odd， focusing primarily on the filibuster in the first half and mostly on personalities in the second。 （I really， really didn't need to hear any more about the repugnant senator from Kentucky。） And， in spite of the author's efforts to the contrary， he did come off sounding unfairly partisan。 Not sure if there is any way around that。 。。。more

Charles Fried ，

The author delivers interesting stories and information about the Senate and Senators， from the founder's original vision and inception to the present。 Given the pivotal nature of the Senate these days， both good and bad， this is fascinating stuff。 This timely books makes an excellent case for abolishing the filibuster。 The style is very readable and narrative。 Recommended！ I received this book as a Goodreads give-a-way， a first for me， and I really enjoyed it。 The author delivers interesting stories and information about the Senate and Senators， from the founder's original vision and inception to the present。 Given the pivotal nature of the Senate these days， both good and bad， this is fascinating stuff。 This timely books makes an excellent case for abolishing the filibuster。 The style is very readable and narrative。 Recommended！ I received this book as a Goodreads give-a-way， a first for me， and I really enjoyed it。 。。。more

Denise ，

In my ongoing effort to better understand the mindbogglingly dysfunctional institution that passes for a government system in the US， this was a very helpful and enlightening read indeed。 This clear， detailed account traces the historical development of the filibuster， how it is being used to derail legislative efforts and obstruct the supposed function of the Senate， and what measures should be undertaken to fix this issue。 Now if only people could actually get their act together and follow tho In my ongoing effort to better understand the mindbogglingly dysfunctional institution that passes for a government system in the US， this was a very helpful and enlightening read indeed。 This clear， detailed account traces the historical development of the filibuster， how it is being used to derail legislative efforts and obstruct the supposed function of the Senate， and what measures should be undertaken to fix this issue。 Now if only people could actually get their act together and follow those very sensible suggestions。。。 。。。more

Michael ，

The most important book of 2021。

Gillie ，

I should probably rate this book higher。 I did think it was a thorough， well-researched look at the filibuster， and I definitely came away understanding how it evolved and why it's destructive to democracy。 But I found that it wasn't a book I could follow really well on audio while doing other tasks， which is how I usually read。 For that reason only， I'm rating it only average。 But， honestly， if you take time to read it carefully （or just want an idea of how we got to where we are with the filib I should probably rate this book higher。 I did think it was a thorough， well-researched look at the filibuster， and I definitely came away understanding how it evolved and why it's destructive to democracy。 But I found that it wasn't a book I could follow really well on audio while doing other tasks， which is how I usually read。 For that reason only， I'm rating it only average。 But， honestly， if you take time to read it carefully （or just want an idea of how we got to where we are with the filibuster）， it's a good one。 。。。more

Dkolacinski ，

A thoughtful， comprehensive analysis of the history， both historical and current， of the ability of a small but powerful minority of the senate to disrupt and ultimately defeat legislation and federal appointments through use of the rules of the Senate， including filibuster and cloture， demonstrating that this ability of the minority is not based on the constitution nor the historical development thereof。 Particularly relevant to what is happening today and in the recent past。 It proposed soluti A thoughtful， comprehensive analysis of the history， both historical and current， of the ability of a small but powerful minority of the senate to disrupt and ultimately defeat legislation and federal appointments through use of the rules of the Senate， including filibuster and cloture， demonstrating that this ability of the minority is not based on the constitution nor the historical development thereof。 Particularly relevant to what is happening today and in the recent past。 It proposed solutions to this quandary and should be considered by the Senate of today。 Highly recommended。 。。。more

Dawn Grabemeyer ，

Good。 He covers the story of the filibuster and other incidents in the senate。 One thing you see is that politics has always had it bad side。

Kaelyn ，

abolish the filibuster。

Shane ，

This book reveals the fascinating history behind the filibuster and shows how our Senate has devolved over time to become an obstacle to democratic rule in the USA。 It informs the current debate over whether the filibuster should be eliminated or weakened， and also shows how our country would be completely different today had this tool of conservative Senate obstructionist had not blocked so much transformative legislation for much of our history。The filibuster was not envisioned by the Founding This book reveals the fascinating history behind the filibuster and shows how our Senate has devolved over time to become an obstacle to democratic rule in the USA。 It informs the current debate over whether the filibuster should be eliminated or weakened， and also shows how our country would be completely different today had this tool of conservative Senate obstructionist had not blocked so much transformative legislation for much of our history。The filibuster was not envisioned by the Founding Fathers， and it is not in the Constitution。 Indeed， though its defenders often cite James Madison， this book presents the case that Madison and the other founders believed in Majoritarian rule of the kind that is diminished by the filibuster。 The Articles of Confederation that outlined the federal government before the Constitution did not work well because the threshold for enacting legislation was set above a majority。In early American history， the Senate was much like the great deliberative body envisioned by the founders。 Norms of good behavior functioned so well that it was unimaginable that Senators would engage in unnecessary debate in order to halt the functioning of the Senate。 Thus， when Vice President Aaron Burr， President of the Senate （even after killing Hamilton！）， rewrote the Senate's rules in 1805， he eliminated the "Previous Question Rule" which provided the means to end debate and move to a vote on a bill。 This rule was thought unnecessary， as norms were sufficient to keep bills moving through the chamber。 Oh， how wrong he was。In the early 19th century， South Carolina pro-slavery Senator John Calhoun was the first to exploit the potential for disruption brought about by elimination of the Previous Question rule， or as we now say， he was the first to filibuster。 The first issue for which he employed this tactic was the admittance to the Union of Oregon as a free state。 Disruptive though this tactic was， it was not effective at blocking legislation， as Senators eventually had to stop talking and a vote would take place。 For over a century， the filibuster was employed almost exclusively to block civil rights legislation such as anti-lynching laws and laws barring poll taxes。 Along the way， a procedural rule called cloture was added in 1917 that gave the Senate the power to end debate if two thirds of the Senate voted to do so。 This threshold was lowered to 3/5， or 60 votes， in the 1970s。 In 1970， the Senate adopted a "two track" procedure by which the Senate could move on with other business if legislation on one track was being filibustered。 From that point forward， a filibuster no longer required unlimited debate。 Just the threat of a filibuster， which could be as easy as a memo from a Senate aide， is enough to raise the threshold from a majority of votes to the 60 vote "Supermajority" required to enact almost any legislation today。 These Senate rule changes that have made filibustering easy have profoundly impacted the lives of every American。 In 1970， the House passed a law to eliminate the Electoral College in favor of electing President by national popular vote。 It died in the Senate at the hands of Southern Democrats， led by Strom Thurmond， who flilibustered the bill in order to preserve the power of White southerners to essentially negate the votes of Blacks in the South。 Had the Electoral College been abolished then， we would likely have avoided both the Bush and Trump presidencies and what they wrought。This book includes the fascinating account of how LBJ transformed from a Southern Senate Majority Leader wielding the filibuster to block Civil Rights legislation to a President enacting the most significant Civil Rights legislation in our history。 It also shows how Harry Reid consolidated power in the Majority leader position by "filling out the tree"， or in other words filling up the Senate's agenda with items to the exclusion of bills and issues not favored by the Majority leader。 It rehashes how McConnell used the filibuster to block so much of Obama's agenda and his nominees and how that led to the "nuclear option" employed by Democrats to get rid of the filibuster for court appointees。 This book makes clear that the Senate has become an abomination， a blockade to progress in this country。 It has done this in a way that was never envisioned by the Founding Fathers and would have been condemned by them。 It makes a very convincing case for the Senate to get rid of the filibuster today in order to secure the Majoritarian rule government envisioned by the founders and desperately needed to facilitate progress in this country。 。。。more

Audrey ，

Really liked it

James ，

An easy and interesting read。 This book covers the history of the filibuster， its uses and abuses， and why we need change so we can form a more perfect union。

Julia ，

pretty engaging and clear for a detailed history on the senate and conservative obstruction

Jacob ，

I really appreciate the fact that this book is devoted to a singular topic - Jentleson spends the entirety of this work to discussing the history of the Senate filibuster， and I quickly realized just how little I knew about it。 The formation of my opinion on the Senate filibuster centers upon two connected points that Jentleson uses strong evidence to support: 1） that the filibuster is actually fundamentally opposed to the view that the Framers’ of the constitution has for the Senate， and 2） tha I really appreciate the fact that this book is devoted to a singular topic - Jentleson spends the entirety of this work to discussing the history of the Senate filibuster， and I quickly realized just how little I knew about it。 The formation of my opinion on the Senate filibuster centers upon two connected points that Jentleson uses strong evidence to support: 1） that the filibuster is actually fundamentally opposed to the view that the Framers’ of the constitution has for the Senate， and 2） that rather than promoting debate and preventing mob rule， the filibuster is a tool used “to empower a minority of predominantly white conservatives to override our democratic system when they found themselves outnumbered” （5）。As he writes in the introduction， “the filibuster was nowhere in the Framers’ vision for the institution， and indeed is antithetical to it” （4）。 In fact， Hamilton specifically wrote that a supermajority requirement “‘is one of those refinements which， in practice， has an effect the reverse of what is expected from it in theory’” （23）。 The Framers believed that the republic is defined by majority rule， and the structural of systems in the US prevents majority tyranny: the US does not have a direct democracy; the country is large enough in size; and forming a majority in and of itself is a difficult task of bringing together a broad coalition of different groups。 “In America， Madison argued majority rule would not trample minority rights because any majority in a country as big and diverse as ours would by definition represent a wide-ranging cross-section of interests” （30）。 The inherent checks in the system would prevent tyranny by a majority - rendering a supermajority requirement unnecessary - the Framers believed。 All this is to suggest that while those who invoke the filibuster as an innocent way to encourage debate， the rights and dignity of minority viewpoints， and upholding the tradition of the Senate are cleverly cloaking obstructionism。The second important point is that once the filibuster was introduced and the supermajority requirement was established， its use was really only in one set of issues: “In the eighty-seven years between the end of Reconstruction and 1964， the only bills that were stopped by filibusters were civil rights bills” （70）。 Rule 22 was established as a Senate reform procedure to end obstructionist so-called “debate” and set up a vote on a topic as the filibuster began to grow in political prominence - but as Jentleson points out: “From the time Rule 22 was invented， southern senators used their combination of procedural savvy， rhetorical gloss， and thinly veiled threat to transform Rule 22 from a tactic to ‘terminate successful filibustering’ into one that made the filibuster capable of stopping bills altogether” （71）。 Across the board， these bills had majority support and centered on civil rights。 There are other， specific details I find particularly intriguing as well - that LBJ used his Senate prowess to punish senators who tried to reform the filibuster， while Nixon worked with civil rights activists to try to end it early in his career。 Also interesting is that Jentleson argues that the dysfunction in the Senate is not in the bias towards small states， as many large states are red and small states are blue （contrary to conventional wisdom）。 On the contrary， the dysfunction is due to the bias towards a specific group of people， namely those who are white， wealthy， anti-choice， and conservative （WWAC）。 All this is to suggest that this group of the American population has run with the tyranny of the super minority and has increased the obstructionist practice of the filibuster。 Since 2008， Jentleson points out， “excluding appropriations bills， Republican filibusters blocked fifteen Democratic-sponsored bills from becoming law， while Democratic filibusters blocked six Republican bills from becoming law，” despite each party having unified control of Washington for equal amounts of time。 The efficacy of the filibuster is one-sided。 The overall takeaway is that in the 1950s/60s “the eighty-seven-year wait enforced by the filibuster [to pass civil rights legislation] - a delay that continued long after majorities in Congress and the public were ready for action - had exacted a toll of incalculable human suffering that inflamed the ‘violent passions’ that Madison had intended the Senate to cool’” （107）。 And today the filibuster is used in a not dissimilar way。 As the WWAC coalition has grown in power with funding and movements like the Tea Party， the “incalculable human suffering” that was caused in the first ~100 years of the filibuster is only going to continue if there are not reforms to the rule， Jentleson argues。 。。。more

Tory Cross ，

Read this， read this， read this， read this。 Read this！This work is a truly excellent dissection of the white supremacist history of the filibuster， and a calling out to an idea whose time has truly come - the time to abolish the filibuster。 The only criticism I have is that I wish the solutions section was more robust。 Regardless， anyone involved in politics or wanting to understand the gridlock in DC needs to read this。

Whitney ，

In college， I took a course on electoral systems and became obsessed with proportional representation as a fix to all of our government's problems。 Similarly， I now find myself convinced of the need to eliminate the filibuster to reform our democracy。 The hardest part about reading this book was the， yet again， unflinching evidence of the absolute moral bankruptcy of the modern GOP， with Mitch McConnell as the star villain。 I do wish Jentleson had been a stronger critic of Harry Reid （unlikely s In college， I took a course on electoral systems and became obsessed with proportional representation as a fix to all of our government's problems。 Similarly， I now find myself convinced of the need to eliminate the filibuster to reform our democracy。 The hardest part about reading this book was the， yet again， unflinching evidence of the absolute moral bankruptcy of the modern GOP， with Mitch McConnell as the star villain。 I do wish Jentleson had been a stronger critic of Harry Reid （unlikely since he worked for him）， because it seems clear that Reid's consolidation of power in the Senate paved the way for some of McConnell's actions， although nothing really comes close to McConnell's indefensible power grab。 The part that is so disheartening is that， because of our system， the Republicans in Congress actually represent a minority of the population， even when they hold a majority of the seats。 And with that minority representation， they have been able to prevent popular and life saving measures on gun control and climate change as well as a host of bills that would provide voting rights， equal pay， and other Civil Rights measures。 The actions of rich， White， conservative men （and the far too many women who support them！） are unconscionable。 Even though Jentleson outlines his ideas for reform， it is hard not to feel completely dejected by the end of this book。 。。。more

Michelle ，

Perfect Book for NerdsThis is a book perfectly tailored to anyone who has ever watched national news， particularly regarding the relationship between broadly supported issues and the roadblocks found in the US Senate， and thought， “How did this happen？”

Reference

google book https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=Taste Top 100: PIE MAKER CO

hathitrust digital library https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?q1=Taste Top 100: PIE MAKER CO&field1=ocr&a=srchls&ft=ft&lmt=ft

The British Library https://bll01.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/search?query=any,contains,Taste Top 100: PIE MAKER CO&tab=LibraryCatalog&search_scope=Not_BL_Suppress&vid=44BL_INST:BLL01&lang=en&offset=0