No comments about Dangerous Ground.

1 comments about Admiral Jerauld Wright: Warrior Among Diplomats (Classic Bookson Cassettes Collection) [UNABRIDGED}.

1. Admiral Jerauld Wright: Warrior Among Diplomats by David M. Key, Jr. (Jerauld Wright's nephew) is a first-rate biography of a military man born near the turn of the century in 1898. A compendium of biographical material was drawn from Admiral Wright's albums and notebooks and provides both insight and immediacy to his personal story. Chapters cover his sea duty during World War I, his involvement in World War II, and much more. A welcome addition to any 20th Century American military biography and history collection, Admiral Jerauld Wright is the powerfully written, event charged story of a dedicated and gifted man who served his country well.

5 comments about Live by the Sword.

1. Gus Russo, a nice guy but intelligence connected (to put it mildly), has authored this book that, while filled with some worthwhile material, also has its share of spurious notions and so forth. On the subject, "Ultimate Sacrirfice" is far superior. Still, worth a (careful) look.
   Vince Palamara
   Secret Service expert, History Channel, author of 2 books, in over 32 other author's books, etc.



2. A more recent book by Leary and Seymour holds updated information that punches a hole in Russo's "Oswald did it alone" thesis. If that were all (or primarily) the content of this book, one might dispense with it. But it isn't. The main focus is on the terrorist campaign waged against Cuba by the Kennedys. Here the book contains a great deal of concisely documented material. This is then plausibly raised as something which could have motivated Oswald. When going through the actual evidence of the assassination, Russo points out relevant evidence which discredits the "grassy knoll" thesis. This has been further supplemented by Leary and Seymour, who likewise reject the popular "grassy knoll" thesis. Yet having come up with enough motives for why someone might be compelled to carry out assassination, and having discredited one very popular thesis, Russo seems satisfied in letting a question go. There is a point when, in discussing the assassination, he simply says that it would take too long to explain right here how he became convinced of the "single bullet theory" and so he is giving a "thumbnail sketch" in Appendix A. At this point, one can detect some logical incompleteness, although he does discredit some of the more popular myths about the assassination, but it isn't surprising to see Leary & Seymour producing newly released evidence supporting a wider "assassination plot" view. What is more to the point about this book is that it is centrally focused on the Kennedy role in the terrorist campaign against Cuba. On this matter, it corrects a number of errors in the earlier (still worthwhile) book by Hinkle and Turner, such as the point where RFK feigns surprise at the CIA being involved with the Mafia against Cuba. As documents have been released since the Stone film, the Camelot myth has become more and more what used to be called "an old wives' tale." This book sheds much light on why, but more complete information is needed if one is specifically looking at the assassination.



3. Gus Russo is a man of many views, all of them contradictory. In the early 1990's, he embraced every conspiracy theory known to man, and was even listed as a "consultant" on Oliver Stone's JFK. He was a firm believer in the Stone school of conspiracy theories. He also endorsed Robert Morrow's dubious book "First Hand Knowledge" with a cover blurb. Then, came his conversion. After Gerald Posner's "Case Closed", Russo realized there was more money to be made in endorsing the opposite, i.e. "official", point of view espoused by the Warren Commission. Russo reversed himself 180 degrees and began hanging around with former CIA types who had been involved in the assassination plots against Fidel Castro (and possibly JFK as well). He was flattered by their attention and bought into their propaganda and disinformation. Hence this book. The book contains several theories, all contradictory: 1) Oswald did it, acting alone, 2) Castro was behind the assassination, and 3) It was all Bobby Kennedy's fault!! Russo also tried to persuade Seymour Hersh, and the Assassination Review Board, that the real assassin was a Cuban intelligence agent, but failed to convince either. Russo is being used, and is not to be trusted. His sources are dubious at best and have their own agenda. Don't believe everything you read.



4. This book is a remarkable piece of scholarship that provides the most thorough backdrop yet to the JFK assassination. I found the most significant part of the book to be the deep politics going on in the JFK administration. My worldview has been forever changed in learning that the character deficits of Bobby Kennedy and his obsession with getting Castro ultimately forced the Cubans to accept Soviet missiles for their own protection. Although I was taught that the Kennedy brothers heroically averted Armageddon in November 1962, it was their arrogance and inexperience that had actually pushed us to the brink in the first place! Thank you, Mr. Russo!!



5. " Take the red pill, and you continue the virtual life you had, without any memory of this meeting. Take the green pill, and I'll show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes . . ." [From the 1999 film "MATRIX"]

   Contrary to the editor's claim, this is not the last book you will want to read on Dealey Plaza. And if one only wants to explore secondary materials, the Truth is scattered around in bits and pieces. Some of it is in the histories and files of foreign and domestic intelligence agencies. Some of it surfaces in new document releases. Some of it emerges in memoirs and biographies written by those close to the several decades of investigations. But you won't find all of it in a single book. Here, I only insinuate why that state of affairs persists.

   The dawn of the 1990s. Stone previews "JFK" to Congress. Congress passes the 1992 JFK Records Collection Act. The lame-duck president stonewalls implementing the Act within its 90-day mandate for appointing an Assassination Records Review Board. Clinton is inaugurated. The original candidate list is "missing", and Clinton solicits another, appointing the ARRB about the time that Starr replaces Fiske as independent prosecutor.

   The American news machine spins up to high revs, with headlines about Whitewater, Travelgate and Vince Foster. Starr is grasping at straws, hoping to find charges that stick. His closest advisors ask him to drop it, but he doesn't. By 1996, Starr looks foolish, and Richard Scaife, who supposedly has intelligence connections from the early 1960s, finds Starr a job-offer at Pepperdine University. Starr decides to stay on to pick at presidential scandal-scabs.

   All along, ARRB is quietly holding hearings. A continuous flow of documents accumulating to 3 million in number pass through the ARRB process. They are declassified from CIA, State, FBI, NSA, and Pentagon, then transferred to National Archives. Small items appear in the papers, buried by the Clinton scandal headlines: ZR/RIFLE-- a collaborative assassination project between CIA and Mafia against Castro; Gerald Ford altering Warren Report evidence fixing the location of JFK's back-wound; a tug-of-war over possession of the Zapruder film.

   The Act absolves key figures in assassination research from CIA non-disclosure agreements, and other witnesses come forward: Col. L. Fletcher Prouty -- Stone's "Mr. X"; Gaeton Fonzi, former investigator for the House Select Committee on Assassinations; Marita Lorenz, friend of Watergate burglar and caribbean assassin Frank Sturgis. Prouty publishes "JFK", pointing a finger at "General Y" -- Maj. Gen. E.G. Lansdale. Fonzi's "The Last Investigation" goes to press, opening a floodgate of leads, as he reveals the connection between Lee Oswald, Antonio Veciana, and David Atlee Phillips, CIA Director of the Western Hemisphere before the Watergate aftermath precipitated his retirement. Even Marita, who had been Castro's girlfriend at CIA's behest, publishes her book with the help of a collaborator. ARRB is releasing many documents; the puzzle-pieces are falling together, but the public allows a moral microscope of scandalous headlines to deflect its chronically deficit attention.

   Starr's investigation falters. Something else is needed, because nobody anticipates a certainty of finding a news-gem like Monica Lewinsky. The ARRB is about to release the long-suppressed files of the HSCA, substantiating Fonzi's book -- the keystone puzzle-piece. Someone must act fast.

   Seymour Hersh says he took five years to put together "Dark Side of Camelot", but he gathers most of his interviews during 1996 and 1997, when the book appears in print. Star witnesses in Hersh's book? Clare Luce for one, asserting that Joe Kennedy Sr. and Henry Luce were as chummy as Abbott and Costello. That story-line spotlights unlikely political bedfellows, and the Luces are one of two families highly suspect at a level above Lansdale and Phillips. Another Hersh witness? J Edgar Hoover, definitely a kingpin in the coverup conspiracy -- a man who had been in Meyer Lansky's pocket, because photos in Lansky's possession depicted Hoover and Tolson in flagrante delicto. Hersh's smear of Kennedy is substantial, and Generation X conservatives become dupes of a new era, conditioned by decades of reflex pre-propaganda associating "conspiracy" with "nut" and "dupe" with "communist".

   So here comes Gus Russo -- surfing the document declassification waves, carrying the weighty tome "Live By the Sword". He renews the original Roselli-Martino-Phillips onion-peel cover-story of "culprit: Castro". But the new documents are a proverbial cat-out-of-bag: Russo needs to explain ZR/RIFLE, so he augments the old story, concluding that Castro made ZR/RIFLE backfire. Splendid! Russo has littered the publishing landscape with conspiracy-theory casualties; the Clinton declassifications are discredited, now that thirty years' collective work looks like a wild goose chase.

   Whoops! Russo didn't mention the NSA declassifications highlighted in Bamford's "Body of Secrets" -- released in 2001. The NSA transcriptions of intercepted cable traffic among all Castro officialdom throughout the hemisphere point in another direction. It wasn't El Barbudo.

   Here's the cake's icing, folks! Carl Bernstein identified Hersh as a CIA media asset in the late 1970s. If you wax skeptical, take a look at Hersh's many publications, and ask yourself if you detect a tintinnabular ring --"intel, intel, intel". Now, savor this pretty cherry on that icing, from Hersh's "Acknowledgements" at the end of "Dark Side" -- a section easily ignored by casual book-readers:

   "Gus Russo did an outstanding job as a researcher, especially on organized crime issues. . . . . "

   If you fancy yourself a serious student of propaganda and psy-war -- read this book. Read Hersh's book. Read both. But if you read one book on a subject and suddenly imagine yourself an expert, take a look at books by Chomsky or Simpson, so you have some idea what the barrage of media information -- print and broadcast -- may have quietly done to your unwitting psyche from the time you started watching cartoons.

   Mr. Russo is preparing another book on the Chicago "outfit". Watch for insinuations he provides in that book to buttress this one . . .

No comments about The Texas Rangers.

No comments about John Ransom's Diary Andersonville.

No comments about Martin Johnson Autobiography.

1 comments about Charles Hillinger's America.

1. Charles Hillinger, through his travels, can share a wonderful side of the U.S. that not many of us have ever experienced, let alone knew existed! It's not a book you have to read cover to cover. Skip around, what ever interests you at the time...Keep up the great work!

5 comments about My Anecdotal Life.

1. Mr. Reiner is undoubtedly a funny man but the full force of his humor is not to be seen in My Anecdotal Life. It is a likable, amusing and easy reading book but the stories are sometimes obscure and the punchlines sometimes don't justify the build-up. The professional period that he is perhaps best known for, the Dick Van Dyke show era, is lightly covered -- much to my disappointment. Another flaw is that there is no index. Books like this name-drop and half the fun is to see who and who isn't mentioned. Sadly, there are no old photos either. As Mr. Reiner intimates, much of the book flows from many years of dinner party repartee. You will like this book but only the most devoted fans will love it.



2. This is a great book! It is easy reading and wonderfully entertaining. I rarely laugh out loud even with the funniest of books, but I did with this one. Carl Reiner has let quite an interesting life, if you are a fan of him (or even if you aren't) you will love this book. Pick it up if you are just looking for some entertaining stories written by a comic genius. I highly recommend it!



3. I had an advanced copy and went through it in two days. This book is very much worth it. My wife and I have been huge fans for years.



4. OK, so I didn't buy this book, I read it standing up at a bookstore (Barnes & Noble on State Street in Chicago), and one, just one, of the anecdotes was so funny that I was laughing so hard that my sides were actually hurting and I thought they were going to throw me out of the store. I'm not going to spoil it for anyone, but let's just call it the "Richard III" anecdote. And if you don't think it's the funniest thing you're ever read, -- well, then you have no sense of humor.



5. Seeing that most of the reviews here are disappointing ones, I'm forced to agree. I expected more references to the heyday of classic television. While Carl must have a thousand stories about that era, he has evidently saved them for a different book. As for THESE anecdotes, I don't think I cracked a smile once. But I sure cracked a yawn.

No comments about Hearst's Father & Son.

4 comments about Alexander the Great & His Time (Movie Tie-In).

1. As I read the other reviews I am left to ponder why I find this book (audio CD) so fascinating. I thoroughly enjoy Agnes Savill's indulgence in trying to fathom the essence of this 'as large as life' character, Alexander of Macedonia. We need more leaders of this stature, and more authors like Agnes Savill. For a wonderful mix of Alexander's biography, detailed historical context and well-researched personal insight (keep a map by your side), this is a great read!



2. When Oliver Stone's "Alexander" was scheduled to be released the people at Blackstone Audio must have wanted to cash in on the opportunity. Agnes Savill's "Alexander the Great and His Time" had to be the cheapest book they could license for an audio production.
   
   I would agree completely with the earlier reviews. The book's only saving grace is the inherent drama of Alexander's life. If Savill had written a straight biography of Alexander, it would have been a half way decent book. However, half the book is her "take" on Greek culture. All and all, a mediocre production.



3. Agnes Savill's book, Alexander the Great and His Time, provides the listener with an in depth review of Alexander's most famous battles, during his conquest of Asia. Also, the book attempts to justify it's overly-favorable presentation of the life of this remarkably energetic and successful conquerer of the near east. However, Savill relies heavily on and quotes from W.W. Tarn almost to the exclusion of so many other excellent scholars (see Tarn's works on Alexander III, volumes I & II, circa 1948).
   
   Tarn, in turn, borrows heavily from Arrian (Lucius Flavius Arrianus, 85 - 146 AD), who was a brilliant Greek commander in the Roman army and a friend of the Emperor Hadrian. Arrian selected the writings of Aristobulus and Ptolemy, as his primary sources, for his own work on Alexander; choosing to exclude much of the negative writings on Alexander that surfaced shortly after his death (predominantly by his detractors, who had their own political motives for vilifying Alexander). Aristobulus and Ptolemy were both contemporaries of Alexander the Great; Ptolemy serving as a distinguished General in the Macedonian Army, under Alexander, while Aristobulus may have been an military engineer or a civilian. Following Alexander's death, in 323BC, Ptolemey ruled over Egypt (begining the Ptolemeic Dynasty, which ended with the death of Cleopatra) and eventually wrote his memoirs, which depicted Alexander in a very favorable light. Neither Ptolemy's nor Aristobulus's accounts of Alexander have survived the ages, and Arrian's "Anabasis of Alexander" is how we know of these first hand accounts of Alexander. Absolutely no first hand accounts of Alexander exist today.
   
   I found Savill's work to be overtly romanticized. One could draw the conclusion that she has "fallen in love" with her own idealized version of Alexander. The rare character flaws and errors of judgment that she does bother to mention, in this book, she immediately takes an apologetic tone for and subsequently follows with some mitigating explanation for Alexander's behavior, and why it was justified. The listener can not be sure that he/she is getting a balanced view of Alexander's life or, if they are getting an idealized perspective from a 'love struck fan!' One almost gets the impression, from Savill's writing, that Alexander was near perfect and could do no wrong. We are treated to a detailed history of Alexander's remarkable achievements, his strengths and successes, but never get to really know him because we never see his more human side (the side with blemishes and imperfections).
   
   Savill, however, is unapologetic in her view of mysticism. The author goes to great lengths to point out every instance of Alexander consulting the ancient mystics (who somehow always manage to accurately predict his future). There are no examples given of the mystics ever giving Alexander incorrect or even vague predictions. Savill does confess, later in the book, that she has a personal bias in favor of mysticism. That bias is acutely evident in this book.
   
   In the final analysis, I can not recommend this book to anyone seeking a strictly scholarly presentation. Those who share, as I do, a favorable view of Alexander but who desire a balanced presentation of the facts, would do better to look elsewhere. Consider acquiring Arrian's writings directly (available here on Amazon, in audio cd format), as opposed to Savill's interpretation of Tarn's interpretation of Arrian!
   
   One last point, while I generally enjoy all of the English dialects (from the various parts of the British Empire), the reader reads too fast and is hard to understand, in some places. Much worse, however, is the audio editing. It sounds as if the book was originally recorded as an abridged edition and they subsequently went back and added the unabridged "fill in" text; but at a much lower decibel setting. The net effect, is that the volume and overall tonal quality of the readers voice changes frequently; as often as several times a minute.
   
   I give this audio book 2 1/2 stars out of 5. While I enjoyed much of the historical content, I felt that I had to filter it through Savill's blatently romantic lens. The poor audio editing accounts for a good part of the subtraction of 2 1/2 stars, in my rating.



4. The author's unthinking child-like adoration becomes extremely tedious. Alexander is characterized both as a saint and a completely flawless rational being.
   
   This hagiography is written in 1959 by an English aristocrat. Alexander is recast as an English Imperialist with Victorian-style morality and modern rational world view. Yet the embellishment of the past 3 millenia is also reiterated uncritically.
   
   In the author's view, everything Alexander the Great did IS great. All of the subjugated peoples were so lucky to have been bettered by his rule. All of his motives are unimpeachable. All aspects of his personality, abilities, and deeds are of heroic proportions. The author accepts every positive historical exaggeration and legend of his motives and exploits. All criticisms made in other chronicles (megalomania, greed, alcololism, mental instability, even simple lapses of judgement) are summarily discarded.
   
   The first half of the book is the history of Alexander. The third quarter is a repetitive summary of historical sources elucidating Alexander's god-like personal characteristics. The final quarter of the book is a broad summary of Greek culture.