I’ve just returned from my book tour to New York, Connecticut and Massachusetts where I saw many old friends, met some wonderful new people, and had many interesting conversations about UNLIKELY ALLIES. And I had a lot of fun being interviewed on Connecticut Public Radio with Faith Middleton, who has long been one of my favorite NPR interviewers. If you want to listen to her amusing interview click here.

I always dreamed of having a book tour. It’s tougher than it looks. It turns out to be a bit like having a bar mitzvah three times a week – except without the checks.

Since the Chicago Tribune’s enthusiastic review there have been good crowds at all of the events, and the bookstores report that the sales are brisk. The Tribune said UNLIKELY ALLIES was “The ideal book for a distracted century.” You can read the complete review here.

One of the questions that people ask at these events is whether any of the characters in the book were gay. I think that sexual orientation is a modern concept that originates in the turn of the last century with Freud. It’s a bit anachronistic to superimpose our own ideas about sexuality on people in the eighteenth century. Of course there were men and women then, as now, who were attracted to members of the same gender, but they did not necessarily define themselves by their sexual attraction any more than they would define themselves by their musical preferences. Perhaps, in a way, they were more enlightened than we were in our obsession with labeling ourselves and others.

The reason that Beaumarchais’ attraction to and for men is relevant to my story is that it explains in part the motive that Louis XVI might have had in sending him on a secret mission to London. (Read the book, and you’ll understand.) The Chevalier d’Eon’s sexuality is a complex and wondrous subject all to itself, and I wouldn’t presume too much about it. And the well-documented fact that Ben Franklin liked to hang out in a gay bathhouse in Paris does not make him gay either.

Sexual intrigue and deception is an important element to this story, and I think a bit of ambiguity and nuance is what is needed to understand these colorful characters. Let’s not spoil the fun by trying to classify everyone.

Borders Bookshop on Park Avenue, N.Y.C.

On the road for UNLIKELY ALLIES. Good turnouts in San Francisco, Marin, and New York City. The book is receiving a great reception from people who like Iphones and “Madmen.” And if you don’t like “Madmen” you shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

Conservatives in Congress are trying to derail the health reform bill by arguing that it allows people to purchase private insurance that covers abortion. Conservatives are demanding that the bill include language prohibiting even private insurers from paying for an abortion. Many of these conservatives are the same people who have denounced the public option as creeping socialism. Republican House minority leader John Boehner has called the health insurance reform bill, “the greatest threat to freedom that I have seen in the 19 years I’ve been in Washington.”

Why do conservatives who fear the heavy hand of the state interfering with the freedom of insurance companies nevertheless support government restrictions on women who want to use their own money to purchase insurance that covers abortion? There are really two issues raised by that question: First, how “free” is our health care market now? And second, are restrictions on women the fairest and most effective way to reduce the number of abortions?

As to the first issue it is already too late to argue for a free market in health care. We have had socialized medicine in the United States for generations; we just have it done badly.

Forty years ago Republicans were denouncing Medicare as socialism. Most people over 65 are pretty happy with socialized Medicare. We spare no expense taking care of the elderly, but we leave their grandchildren unprotected. That seems irrational.

People who are lucky enough to work for employers that provide health insurance are also the beneficiaries of socialized medicine. In fact, private insurance is a form of socializing risk. The young and healthy workers pay premiums that subsidize older and sicker workers.

But our insurance system is hugely inefficient. It generates windfall profits for insurers and creates perverse incentives for doctors to order unnecessary procedures. That’s why we have the most expensive health care in the world, but the World Health Organization ranks the quality of our health care 37^th – lower than any other western industrialized country and just behind Costa Rica. And the soaring cost of employer-based insurance hurts the competitiveness of our exports. For example, on average the sticker price of an automobile produced by a U.S. manufacturer is inflated by about $1500 to pay health insurance for workers. That burden on U.S. manufacturers is one more reason for our trade deficit, sinking dollar, and the loss of manufacturing jobs.

Everyone who doesn’t get socialized Medicare or socialized health care from their employers relies on community health clinics and emergency rooms for socialized medicine. And the rest of us pay for this through our taxes. The lack of universal health care also reduces the quality of our health care system for everyone. Anyone who has gone to an emergency room knows just how long you may wait while ER doctors are treating uninsured people with bellyaches and colds because they can’t afford their own doctor. When people with infectious diseases don’t get treated, all of us are exposed. And when people wait until they are very sick to see a doctor, it is far more expensive to treat them. All these costs are passed on in the form of higher hospital costs for everyone.

So pretending that we have a free market to defend against the threat of socialism is nonsense. We have the worst form of medical socialism already – bloated, inefficient, and unfair. Right now decisions about our health care are dictated by the vagaries of our employment status, the terms of our insurance, or the dictates of an HMO bureaucrat. Doesn’t it make more sense to allow the government to establish policies to reduce paperwork, guarantee access, and treat all Americans the same regardless of pre-existing illnesses?

The second issue is whether restricting a woman’s right to buy insurance that covers abortion is the fairest and most effective way to reduce the number of abortions? It doesn’t matter whether you oppose abortion or not. It’s hypocritical for conservatives who are concerned with “freedom” in the health care market to argue that women should not be free to purchase private insurance that provides a medical treatment that is constitutionally protected.

Let’s be clear that the proposed law is not providing any subsidies for abortions. The Supreme Court has said that government has a right to discourage women from seeking an abortion by subsidizing childbirth without providing equivalent benefits for abortion. Federal law has long denied women any federal funds for abortion, and there’s no doubt that Congress will continue to ban federal funds for abortion.

The freedom to choose to bring a child into this world is only meaningful if one can afford it. One way to encourage women to carry their fetuses to term would be to provide women with the necessities of life for themselves and their children. Health care is one of the necessities that young mothers require. That’s why abortion opponents should be marching in the street demanding health reform with a government option and loads of subsidies that would reduce the cost of health care.

The critics are right about one thing. The health reform bill is about freedom: freedom from the fear that in America being sick can be a financial catastrophe. The health reform plan will give more American families the freedom to choose a plan that works for them.

If you like reading this blog, check out my new book, UNLIKELY ALLIES.  

BookPage describes it as “an astonishing look at the sometimes seedy side of our country’s founding…a compelling tale with engaging characters, intriguing twists and a surprise ending…Now that’s history!” And the Daily Beast called it “one of the hot books of the week.”

Halloween is a holiday in search of a hero. President’s Day has Lincoln and Washington; Christmas has Santa; Valentine’s has Cupid; even Groundhog Day has Punxsutawney Phil; and Mother’s Day – well, you get the idea.

Halloween, which, let’s face it, is for adults not kids, has languished without an appropriate adult role model. Most Halloween characters, like Dracula, the Wicked Witch, or Tricky Dick have few redeeming qualities. Others, like Casper the Friendly Ghost or Batman are either too juvenile or too commercial. And the rest – princesses, clowns, and cowboys – are all puny anonymities. Where is the real masked hero whose exploits should be celebrated on this auspicious day?

I’d like to nominate the eighteenth-century Chevalier d’Eon as a genuine costumed hero for Halloween. Who, you ask? The Chevalier d’Eon was the French emissary to London in the 1760’s. D’Eon, was a courageous military hero of the Seven Years War between France and England, a champion fencer, and a brilliant spy, who lived a lifetime in disguise – first, for 40 years as a man and later, for 40 years as a woman. Voltaire once famously described the Chevalier as “A nice problem for history.”

According to the Chevalier’s memoirs, her father wanted a son and decided to raise her as a boy. She was not only an exceptionally handsome young man, but also an accomplished student and a talented athlete. She soon discovered that as a male she had more opportunities in life than her sisters who were imprisoned in dresses and denied any chance to exercise their free will. She rose quickly through Louis XV’s secret spy network, allegedly sometimes disguised as female and sometimes as male. The Chevalier became a fierce military commander in the elite royal dragoons, and later, as a diplomat, she negotiated the treaty that ended the Seven Years War. The Chevalier was so beloved in the court of King George II, then it was rumored d’Eon had fathered George III.

After a squabble with Louis XV’s foreign minister d’Eon was fired as Minister Plenipotentiary to Britain. The Chevalier retaliated against the French Government by publishing a portion of secret diplomatic correspondence. Then d’Eon blackmailed the King by threatening to publish secret letters in which Louis asked d’Eon to assist in planning a French invasion of London that could only be described as cuckoo.

Louis XVI sent the famous French playwright, Caron de Beaumarchais, author of The Barber of Seville, on a secret mission to London in 1775 to persuade d’Eon to surrender the secret correspondence. By then rumors that d’Eon was a cross-dresser had spread widely, and tens of thousands of pounds sterling were wagered on this unlikely proposition. When d’Eon met the dashing Beaumarchais, the Chevalier tearfully disclosed to him for the first time that under the decorated uniform of a captain of the dragoons, she was indeed female.

How then was d’Eon a hero? Sometime around Halloween, 1776, d’Eon agreed with Beaumarchais to abandon her blackmail and her military uniform and admit publicly that she was a woman. Through a twisted series of events d’Eon’ decision to “come out” became the catalyst that convinced Louis XVI to arm the Americans against the British in the American Revolution. As a result of d’Eon’s actions Louis XVI provided the Americans with all of the arms, ammunition, uniforms, blankets, tents, boots, hats, even handkerchiefs for an army of 30,000 men. These desperately needed supplies reached Washington’s men just weeks before the critical Battle of Saratoga that proved to be the turning point of the American Revolution.

In other words, America owes its independence in part to a cross-dressing French spy. Who could be a more appropriate patron saint for the festival of Halloween? Come to think of it maybe we should make d’Eon the hero of July Fourth instead.

If you like reading this blog, check out my new book, UNLIKELY ALLIES.  

Here’s what Library Journal says about UNLIKELY ALLIES : “Paul’s fast-paced, engaging narrative fills a gap in the historiography of the American Revolution and is essential reading for students of revolutionary diplomacy as well as general devotees of the age.”

The normally circumspect David Brooks of The New York Times could hardly contain himself on the News Hour. The buttoned-down conservative sputtered that awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama was “a joke,” and he dismissed the Nobel Prize Committee as nothing more than “five Norwegian lefties.” Other commentators were quick to pass judgment that the Nobel Committee was behaving like the Democratic Campaign Committee by awarding the prize first to Vice-President Gore and now President Obama. After all, what exactly had Obama accomplished?

Obviously, nine months into his first year in office and only five years out of the Illinois State Senate, Barak Obama is no Nelson Mandela. He hasn’t accomplished what Lech Walesa, Martin Luther King, or German Chancellor Willy Brandt did to win the peace prize. Arguably, he hasn’t even done as much as Vice-President Gore did to wake the world to the apocalypse of global warming. But that misses the point entirely.

The Nobel Peace Prize goes to the person who has done the most in 2009 to advance the cause of world peace. The committee judges individuals based on their contemporary significance, not on their world historical status. You don’t have to be another Dag Hammarskjöld to win a prize. It isn’t a Mother Teresa look-alike contest either.

In 2009 is there any event more significant in reducing international tensions than the change from George W. Bush to Barak Obama? Even if you do not agree with Obama’s politics, public opinion polls show overwhelming approval for Obama and his foreign policies among most of the world’s nations compared to the overwhelming disapproval of the policies of the Bush Administration. The public acclaim he received in Cairo and Berlin was truly astounding. And that matters. One could argue that all that President Obama has done is make speeches. “I have a dream” and “tear down this wall,” were only words, yet they changed the world.

Surely, transforming America’s image, committing the United States to reducing global warming, prohibiting torture, and opening dialogues with old adversaries like Iran and North Korea are momentous achievements.

OK, I admit that Obama may not belong in the same company as Martin Luther King or Linus Pauling, but that’s not the relevant question. We all get the idea that not all prize winners are created equal.

Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Hank Aaron, and Ted Williams, were all chosen as Most Valuable Players. But so were Bob O’Farrell, Spud Chandler and Gabby Hartnett, in their respective years. No one thinks that they all played ball at the same level.

The Godfather, Lawrence of Arabia, On the Waterfront, and All About Eve were all chosen as Best Picture by the Academy of Motion Pictures. Incredibly, the same prize went to Titanic and Braveheart. But they were different years with different pictures in contention.

No one thinks that the tired 60’s musical How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying was as important as Death of a Salesman, A Streetcar Named Desire, and Angels in America just because all four of them won the Pulitzer Prize for Drama in their respective years.

By awarding the peace prize to President Obama the Nobel Committee was acknowledging a change in the tenor and direction of U.S. foreign policy. The United States has returned to international institutions and to our traditional alliances.

The media has reacted as if Obama is somehow tainted by his association with the Nobel Committee. Americans have often been suspicious when our statesmen are honored from abroad. When Silas Deane, the hero of my book, UNLIKELY ALLIES, was honored in 1778 by our ally Louis XVI many in Congress questioned Deane’s loyalty. Now some Americans even question President Obama’s nationality

The peace prize often is awarded to controversial figures. Yasser Arafat, Henry Kissinger, Le Duc Tho, and Menachem Begin were Nobel winners. Kissinger and Begin? Apparently, the Nobel Committee isn’t just a bunch of “Norwegian lefties.”

We should all take pride that the world has embraced our President as a symbol of American generosity and pluralistic democracy. Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize is America’s peace prize, too. And we deserve it.

 If you like reading this blog, check out my new book, UNLIKELY ALLIES.  

Booklist called UNLIKELY ALLIES, ”A rip-roaring account of the American Revolution, told from a fresh, and undeniably offbeat, perspective.”

The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) provides assistance to low-income families. Among other activities ACORN has crusaded for a living wage, aid for the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina, and relief for families facing foreclosure. Perhaps ACORN is based known for registering minority and poor voters in record numbers in the 2008 election.

It is hardly surprising therefore that ACORN has been a favorite target of conservative pundits and politicians. In the 2008 election Republicans charged that ACORN canvassers were engaged in voter fraud when a number of canvassers registered suspicious sounding names like “Donald Duck.” Of course, there was no evidence that Mr. Duck or any of a number of other cartoon characters voted. Nor was there any reason to suspect that ACORN had intentionally engaged in fraudulent voter registration. (Presumably, if one really wanted to commit voter fraud one would have used a more credible name like John Doe.)

Now we learn that a few ACORN employees were secretly filmed providing assistance to a couple posing as a pimp and a prostitute. The phony couple and the filming were supported by Biggovernment.com, a right-wing website. ACORN employees allegedly advised the couple how to apply for a mortgage without disclosing that they planned to operate a house of prostitution and how to avoid paying income taxes.

Obviously, the video looks bad for ACORN and suggests that ACORN needs to improve its management and do a better job of training its employees. ACORN has acknowledged its mistakes, and they promptly dismissed the employees who fell for this ruse. Nevertheless, the right-wing is not satisfied and is trying to inflate the issue into something more.

The Democratic majority in the Senate, terrified of the right-wing blogosphere, immediately pushed through a measure to punish ACORN by denying it any federal aid to assist low-income people in obtaining mortgages. And the Census Bureau has ended its partnership with ACORN to count low-income families in the upcoming census. The overreaction of the media and the federal government to ACORN’s management problems is a symptom of what’s wrong with American politics.

First, it should be noted that there is no evidence that ACORN is engaged in a pattern of criminal activity. The same tricksters visited many ACORN offices around the country. In most cases they were tossed out, and in at least one case, the Philadelphia office of ACORN phoned the police on them. The advice offered by ACORN employees to obtain a mortgage and avoid taxes was pretty banal – stuff like don’t mention you’re a prostitute. These were not criminal masterminds.

Second, ACORN employees are generally hired from low-income communities with minimal education and job experience. Perhaps they were overly solicitous, but is it really fair to blame poor people for a lack of professional experience? It’s one thing when corporate executives engage in price-fixing conspiracies; it’s another when people working at a nonprofit for a minimum wage are entrapped in a rightwing sting operation.

Third, cutting off ACORN’s access to federal housing funds hurts poor people, and it saves the federal government nothing more than pocket change. According to one congressional report ACORN received less than $54 million over the last 15 years. The Senate’s measure won’t make a dent in the face of a $1.2 trillion federal deficit.

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this whole affair is that Senators, who knew or should have known, voted overwhelmingly for a punitive measure that is expressly prohibited by the Constitution as a “bill of attainder.” A bill of attainder is any legislation that imposes a penalty on a particular individual or group; it is the equivalent of Congress acting like a judge and jury in violation of the separation of powers. The Framers of our Constitution expected the Senate to cool down the fever of the popular will and allow time for a deliberative response to a public demand.  The Framers did not expect that the Senate’s first response to a public relations fiasco would be to toss the Constitution overboard.

The same senators who angrily denounced ACORN were noticeably silent when billions of tax dollars went unaccounted for in Iraq or were paid to private contractors for work that was never done properly in Iraq and Afghanistan. But of course those contractors did not do work for poor people; they were major campaign contributors.

Finally, in all the reporting on ACORN it has hardly been mentioned that the conservative group that secretly filmed ACORN violated state laws that prohibit secret videotaping. California Attorney General Jerry Brown has called for an investigation of the illegal taping.

The ACORN scandal is just another danger sign that American democracy is in trouble. Congress deadlocks over any attempt to reform health care, taxes, budgets, or education, but a stupid prank turns into a national news story, and Congress has a knee-jerk reaction that overtly violates the Constitution.

ACORN needs new management, but that is hardly a national problem. The real problems that our country faces – unemployment, housing, health care, education – are the very problems that ACORN works on everyday. If Congress spent its time addressing the real problems of our nation, ACORN wouldn’t be needed.

If you like reading this blog, check out my new book, UNLIKELY ALLIES.

Booklist called UNLIKELY ALLIES, ”A rip-roaring account of the American Revolution, told from a fresh, and undeniably offbeat, perspective.”

The ninth circuit federal court of appeals in San Francisco has held that former Attorney General John Ashcroft is personally liable for illegally detaining American citizens after 9-11. The court’s decision represents a stunning victory for the principle that no one is above the law.

The ninth circuit’s opinion arose out of a case brought by an American citizen born in Wichita, Kansas, to parents of U.S. citizenship. His given name was Lavoni Kidd. He was a football star at the University of Idaho. Sometime in college he decided to convert to Islam and changed his name to Abdullah al-Kidd. In 2003 al-Kidd received a scholarship to study Arabic and Islamic law at a university in Saudi Arabia. On his way to Saudi Arabia al-Kidd was approached by federal agents at Dulles Airport and arrested. He was not charged with any crime. The government claimed that al-Kidd was a material witness in the criminal trial of another Islamic man he knew at the university, who was being prosecuted for visa fraud. The government claimed that al-Kidd was fleeing the jurisdiction and that he had a one-way $5,000 business class ticket on him. In fact, al-Kidd was travelling on a $1700 roundtrip coach class ticket, and he had left his wife and children behind in Nevada.

It turned out that the government never had any reason to call al-Kidd as a material witness. It was merely a pretext for detaining him. He was detained for more than two weeks, subjected repeatedly to humiliating body searches, kept in a brightly lit high-security prison cell 23-hours per day, and handcuffed and shackled whenever he was moved. For fifteen months after his release from federal prison the government required him to remain at home in Nevada, limit his movements out of the house, surrender his passport, and report regularly to a probation officer.

Al-Kidd sued Attorney General Ashcroft with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), alleging that as a consequence of his detention, he lost his job, his opportunity for study abroad, and his marriage.

As attorney general John Ashcroft authorized the use of the federal material witness statute to detain Islamic men whom the Justice Department thought might possibly be terrorists. But the material witness statute was not intended for preventative detention, which is generally prohibited by the Constitution. The federal statute only allows the government to detain a person who is a material witness in a criminal trial for a temporary period if the government reasonably believes that there is a likelihood that the witness might otherwise disappear while a trial is pending. The men detained by Ashcroft were not necessarily material witnesses to any pending criminal trials.

In the law suit Ashcroft made the extravagant claim that as attorney general he was absolutely immune from civil liability. The Supreme Court has said that federal prosecutors may have absolute immunity from a narrow class of claims arising out of a prosecutor’s actions in court. But the Supreme Court has made it clear that this is a very limited exception and that prosecutors are not immune for illegal actions or decisions that take place outside of a courtroom.

In its decision in al-Kidd v. Ashcroft, the ninth circuit reaffirmed this traditional limitation on the absolute immunity of prosecutors. In this case it’s clear that Ashcroft made a policy decision to use the federal material witness statute as a license for preventative detention of Islamic and Arab men. It had nothing to do with prosecuting crime in court; it was merely a tool for waging the war on terror.

The Framers of our Constitution did not permit arbitrary or preventative detention, even of persons who might be thought dangerous. The generation that fought the American Revolution was not naïve about foreign risks to our domestic security. They certainly understood the vulnerability of a democratic society to spies and saboteurs, as my book UNLIKELY ALLIES attests. But the Framers preferred to err on the side of personal liberty rather than to create a police state that might be safer, but stultifying.

In this regard the Framers of our Constitution were choosing to protect liberties that were not necessarily protected by the British Constitution. Britain was much more inclined to sacrifice the rights of British citizens to serve the cause of state security. In UNLIKELY ALLIES the French Foreign Minister Vergennes wryly observed that “only a government as free as England’s would be so suspicious of its own subjects.” That was precisely what the Framers did not want to happen in America.

Our Founding Fathers revolted against arbitrary rule and fought for the proposition that even the king’s representatives in the colonies should be held accountable for their actions. The ninth circuit has struck a blow against arbitrary government. In doing so it has opened up the possibility of more claims being brought against other former government officials who established or implemented anti-terrorism policies that were exceeded the limits of our Constitution. The full scope of the Bush Administration’s chilling excesses in the war on terror is carefully chronicled in Jane Mayer’s excellent book, THE DARK SIDE. After reading Mayer’s well-balanced account, I am more grateful to our Framers than ever that under our Constitution, our leaders will be held to account for their abuses of power.

We are accustomed to reading histories that deify the Founding Fathers. They, after all, overthrew the world’s greatest military power to establish a republic, and they did it with rhetorical grace that even today stirs the heart. Our idealized view of the Founding Fathers obscures their failings as often as it eclipses other great American political leaders who did not have the good fortune to be alive in 1776.

I’m thinking, of course, of Senator Kennedy whose passing last week finally drew him the bipartisan praise that he had earned but was generally denied in his lifetime. Whatever one may think of his liberalism, he was a fierce and effective advocate, who nevertheless respected his colleagues on both sides and conducted himself with a civility that is as absent today from politics as it was in 1776. Ted Kennedy understood that just because a person has a different opinion about tax policy, health care, or military spending is no reason to question his patriotism, intellect, or character.

What makes Kennedy’s collegiality extraordinary is that he was constantly maligned by conservatives, including those whom he genuinely liked. For nearly a half-century, he bore all of this abuse with quiet dignity and humor.

When you consider Senator Kennedy’s monumental legislative record of accomplishment in health, labor, human rights, economic reform, and education, there are few presidents who got as much done as he did. And he did all this while winning the respect and affection of his adversaries as much as his allies.

By comparison, some of the Founding Fathers were vicious hypocrites who thought nothing of defaming their colleagues with baseless accusations and whose fiery politics alienated even members of their own party. Jefferson, for example, as vice-president arranged for the publication of outrageous lies about President John Adams. Jefferson paid someone to steal the personal papers of Silas Deane, the hero of my book UNLIKELY ALLIES.  Jefferson tried to impeach federal judges who disagreed with him. Jefferson extolled the virtues of the bloody French Revolution, and so alienated the Federalists in Congress that his election in 1800 bitterly divided the young republic.

That’s not to say that Jefferson does not deserve his place as one of the authors of the Declaration of Independence and the founder of the University of Virginia. But a fair-minded person could conclude that the achievements of Jefferson, like other Founding Fathers, were won despite his mean partisanship. In contrast to Jefferson, Ted Kennedy time and again reached across the aisle to heal the divisions of party.

I met Senator Kennedy only in passing at two dramatic points in his astonishing career. The first time was when I was called to testify as a witness before the Senate Judiciary Committee to corroborate Anita Hill’s allegations against then-Judge Clarence Thomas. Though some liberals criticized Kennedy for not taking a stronger position against Judge Thomas, they forget Kennedy’s dramatic role in those hearings. At the time, of course, the Senator was facing allegations in the press concerning his own drinking and socializing. He felt constrained by those allegations to lead the attack. But after a panel of four witnesses, myself included, testified in support of Anita Hill’s allegations, Senator Kennedy responded in a booming voice to the defamatory attacks on Anita Hill:

“…I hope, Mr. Chairman, that after this panel we are not going to hear any more comments, unworthy, unsubstantiated comments, unjustified comments about Professor Hill and perjury…I hope we are not going to hear more about fantasy stories picked out of books…I hope we can clear this room of dirt and innuendo, that has been suggested [about] Professor Hill… They are unworthy.”

That was Kennedy at his best: decrying those who used smear tactics to advance a political agenda. Throughout his long career Kennedy stood to uphold the Senate’s tradition of decorum and comity.

I met Senator Kennedy again last year at a breakfast at the home of a friend. It was only days after Senator Kennedy’s dramatic endorsement of Senator Obama for president and only months before his brain tumor was discovered. Kennedy bounded up like a eager puppy to introduce himself to all the guests – as if there were anyone on the planet who would not recognize him. His hand seemed like it was the size of a catcher’s mitt, leathery from a lifetime of sailing and shaking hands. He was excited about the young senator from Illinois whose idealism and eloquence reminded him of his own brothers. And he was determined to help pass Obama’s health insurance reform.

Kennedy spent four decades persistently and patiently working towards health reform. Perhaps he could have succeeded this year with a broad consensus of Democratic and Republican colleagues. If he were unable to win broad support, Kennedy would have pushed for reform with the votes he had, and afterward, he would have embraced his Republican colleagues and defused any hard feelings.

Kennedy’s civility is an exceedingly rare element in the summer of “death panel” Republicans and “birther” conspiracy theorists. We have lost Senator Kennedy at the moment we needed him most to escape the toxic political environment that has engulfed health insurance reform.  We need more like him.

If you like reading this blog, check out my new book, UNLIKELY ALLIES.

It started with my friend Cheryl. She and I were roommates when I first landed in San Francisco. Cheryl is a voluptuous, brainy, magnetic law professor – if that doesn’t sound like a contradiction in terms. She is also a terrific writer who invited me to join her writing group. I was having trouble finishing a writing project, and I thought that if I joined a group it might help. After several weeks I was summarily kicked out of the group by the other writers who felt I lacked “seriousness.” That really stung.  

Cheryl tried to cheer me up. She decided I needed a dog. I had been talking about getting a dog for years. I’m crazy about dogs. I’m the kind of guy who gets teary-eyed when I pass the pet food aisle, but wasn’t sure I was prepared for the commitment.

Once Cheryl decided I needed a dog, it didn’t really matter that I had doubts; Cheryl is a force of nature. She dragged me to the San Francisco ASPCA where we found a shaggy mutt that seemed perfect. But when I applied to adopt her, I was rejected. I was told that I was “not emotionally suited” for this dog, whatever that meant. Ouch.

But once Cheryl put the idea in my head, I couldn’t stop wanting to adopt a furry friend. After applying to several rescue groups, I found the love of my life at Second Chance Rescue. She was a skinny small yellow border collie-lab-golden mix. She had the sweet personality of a golden and the intellect of a border collie, which is fortunate, because the other way around would be intolerable. But she had been badly abused and was scared to be left alone. I named her Micky after my grandmother.

Around the time that Micky came to live with me I had begun writing about the Founding Fathers. When I sat down she would nestle by my feet and sleep soundly, but if I got up to move around she would pace nervously. Once her pacing started it was hard to quiet her down again. I knew that if I stood up I would have to deal with her neurotic behavior. So it was easier to just keep writing. It didn’t matter if I was hungry or wanted a bathroom break. It wasn’t worth disturbing Micky.

So Micky became my muse, and with her jealously guarding my time, I wrote and wrote and wrote. Sometimes a whole day would pass with me glued to my keyboard. I would loose track of the time until she woke up and started licking my hand because it was time for her walk.

There is an apocryphal story that President Truman once said, “If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog.” I don’t know about that, but I now know that if you want to write a book, get a rescue dog.

If you like reading this blog, check out my new book, UNLIKELY ALLIES.

Six years ago I was writing a book with that title on the history of international law in U.S. courts in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The challenge was trying to make that book interesting to a wider audience.

I was looking for a vignette to open the book that would capture the improvisational quality of foreign policy at the time of the founding of the republic. The  Founding Fathers had to invent American diplomacy on a clean slate. That’s when I discovered the story of Silas Deane.

Silas Deane was one of the more obscure Founding Fathers. He owned a dry goods store in Wethersfield, Connecticut. He had never left Connecticut in his life. He knew nothing about diplomacy, and he couldn’t speak a word of French, but Ben Franklin decided to send Deane on a secret mission in 1775 to persuade Louis XVI to arm the Americans against the British. Franklin thought that Deane was so improbable the British spies would never suspect him.

I was puzzled as to how Deane succeeded in obtaining all of the arms, ammunition, uniforms, tents, boots, hats, and blankets for an army of 30,000 men without the benefit of any credentials or cash. So I looked for a good book about Deane, but there weren’t any.

In frustration I phoned a friend of mine, David Kahn, who was the executive director of the Connecticut Historical Society at the time. I thought David could tell me how to find Deane’s letters or diaries. Perhaps there was a website or a Library of Congress publication or some other service to help my research.

To my astonishment David replied, “we own Deane’s papers.” Just a few weeks earlier David by chance had run into Deane’s papers, which were in several boxes stored away in the basement of the Connecticut Historical Society. If he hadn’t known about Deane’s papers, I would never have found them on my own.

I flew to Hartford, where coincidentally the papers were kept in a building 1000 yards from where I used to teach at the University of Connecticut Law School. I opened these boxes for the first time since who knows when and discovered letters to or from Franklin, Louis XVI, Washington, Jay, Adams, and many other Founding Fathers. The tale that they told was an incredible story of courage, patriotism, betrayal, treason, corruption, and murder. I was hooked.

I wrote a new introduction to my book, “Pirates, Slaves and Indians,” and I showed it to my sister. She told me “forget about pirates, slaves and Indians and write this book.” So I did.

I hope you like it.

If you like reading this blog, check out my new book, UNLIKELY ALLIES.