Joan Roelofs

The literature of “power elite” theory is surprisingly silent on the role of the judiciary. This is particularly strange as the judiciary was designed to be the elite institution in the federal system, and there is a good deal of evidence that it has functioned as planned: “The Court's power is a natural outcome of the necessity for maintaining capitalist dominance under democratic forms; …judicial review has proved to be a very convenient channel through which the driving forces of American economic life have found expression and achieved victory.” The elite backgrounds of the judges have been much studied, and might explain a predisposition to respond to elite interests and values. However, the “input” channels remain mysterious

The spirit of computer dating, lacking only the technology, was one of a number of schemes by which Charles Fourier wanted to radically transform human sexual relations. Early 19th century socialist thought, socialist movements and experiments were concerned with the entire catalog of miseries afflicting humankind. Monogamy and all its woes figured far more prominently than surplus value, which (according to pharmacists' records) was rarely the cause of suicidal depression. The Marxist tradition, while paying lip service to the “utopian” critique of bourgeois society, repressed most of the “cultural” concerns of early socialism. The Utopians did not ignore or accept capitalism; it was a major evil, but not necessarily the source of all the other evils

Nielsen, a former foundation officer and consultant, tells us that: “Some nonobsequious writing [on foundations] has begun to appear … (431).” Unfortunately, The Golden Donors is not of that genre. To be sure, this study of the thirty-six largest foundations is critical of many and hands out evaluations for each on the grounds of public policy activism (good) or conventionality (bad), and the behavior of trustees and staff. Nevertheless, die text is replete with the language of public relations — full of “shining examples,” “innovative, philosophical and provocative speeches,” “invigorating research” and even “constructive” conservatism