1 comments about Roosevelt and Stalin: The Failed Courtship.

1. Robert Nisbet is not usually classified as a historian, he is usually placed in the pigeon hole labelled 'sociologist'. This assessment is, of course, unfair as anyone who has surveyed his 'sociological' writings will attest. Nisbet usually manages to survey sociological and political thought, linking the philosophy and biography of his subject, whether it is Rousseau, Tocqueville or Kropotkin, in his works. So Nisbet was always a "historical sociologist" if such a classification exists. This book however is straight history and Nisbet shows his strength both as a writer and historical analyst. Nisbet's writing is always crisp, clear and precise. It doesn't stray and, like most good writing, it makes for quick paced reading.
   
   Nisbet's analysis of Roosevelt's "Failed Courtship" with Joseph Stalin relies on secondary source material, notably the "Complete Correspondence" between Roosevelt and Churchill, edited by Prof Warren Kimball of Rutgers University. He also relies on biographical and memoir material from FDR cabinet members and close advisers. So if there is any 'bias' in the selection of sources, the odds are, if anything, stacked in FDR's favour. Unfortunately for the world the picture that emerges of FDR is not the patriotic portrait or hero of liberal hagiography.
   
   FDR had plenty of advice, not just from Churchill, but his own diplomats and foreign policy experts, Keenan for example, warning him of Stalin's ruthless ambition. FDR chose to ignore advice and advisors who contradicted his own deep seated belief that Stalin and the Soviet leadership generally, were deep down merely fellow progressives like himself. Progressives with a nasty predisposition for violence, perhaps that's a fault understandable considering the vile Old Regime and it's old world meddling imperialist friends that they needed to overthrow and outfight. Perhaps this fault might be overcome with example, solid help and understanding from fellow democrats abroad. Well that's how Roosevelt saw things anyhow.
   
   Nisbet documents the sound advice ignored and FDR's unrequited concessions to Stalin in detail. FDR believed 'he could handle' Stalin, all that was required was just more noblesse oblige and postwar harmony would be assured. Stalin got FDR's number early, and played him like a fiddle. Eventually it should be possible, one hopes, for documentary evidence from the Russian side to be unearthed to confirm or deny Nisbet's thesis here.
   
   Many liberals recoil at any and all criticisms of FDR's handling of the great power conferences, perhaps in reaction to McCarthyite claims and oft repeated right wing condemnations of the Yalta Conference. The usual apologia for Yalta is that the allies could not reverse what the Red Army had achieved on the ground so Yalta, rather than a betrayl, was merely the cold recognition of strategic realities. Nisbet "island hops" both these arguments, thus outflanking both the McCarthyites and liberals. He agrees with the liberal view that by the time of the Yalta Conference, Soviet domination of East Europe was a fait accompli. But he counters that it was at the earlier Tehran Conference that prior agreements for Soviet domination was granted. If a stronger stand, some negotiation, had been made there, then we would be in a better position to discern accommodation from appeasement at Yalta. George F Kennan noted the idealistic crusade sketched out by the Atlantic Charter and "Four Freedoms" essentially became obsolete once Stalin became ally. Nisbet paints a picture of FDR as the Neville Chamberlain of the Cold War. If anything this is unfair to Chamberlain. At least Chamberlain in hindsight brought the western allies more time to rearm.
   
   Nisbet leaves his speculation on FDR's motives to the last chapter. His conclusion would disappoint FDR's McCarthyite critics. FDR's advisors included many who were ultimately correct. FDR chose to ignore them. Nor was FDR being manipulated by high placed Reds, he was captain of his own ship. He only followed advice he wanted to hear. He was a man of his times and pursued his own vision, and it was a vision shared. Like most Ivy League graduates of his era, he was a thorough going Wilsonian. FDR had in earlier decades worked on the construction of the Wilson's project only to see it collapse at home and abroad. When WW2 came, FDR was giving Wilsonism one more college try. FDR believed that by making concession after concession to Stalin he would be able to achieve post WW2, the new era Wilson dreamed of post WW1. FDR, like Wilson before him, reserved his primary suspicions, suspicions perhaps confirmed by the scavenger like behaviour of the Versailles victors, that "old world imperialism" was, in the long run, the prime enemy of progress and world peace. "The devil you know". The new devil of 'totalitarianism' did not loom as large to FDR.
   
   Nisbet's analysis here is thus more forgiving and sympathetic than Harry Elmer Barnes's. Barnes was also a sociologist and historian, but unlike the Burkean conservative Nisbet, Barnes was a progressive, social democrat and a liberal. Barnes saw himself as an 'old liberal', among those who initially drawn to Wilson learned from the failure and who were determined not to repeat it. FDR, another old liberal, decided to redouble not revise the effort. Barnes attributes FDR's global activism from 1937 onward to the failure of the 'second New Deal' to cope with a renewed downturn, the swing back to depression conditions, despite the apparent short term successes of the early New Deal. Nisbet touches on this point but lets FDR off lightly. Barnes blames not just FDR but the whole class of 'new liberals' now addicted to the power that comes with office. With the puff disappearing from their reform agenda, war seemed preferable to a spell in opposition and the risk that any revived Republicans may reverse New Deal reforms.
   
   We have all heard the truism that generals' plan to fight the last war. In a sense FDR was making this error in his diplomacy and grand strategy. With the world and US policy today going through another generational change following the Soviet collapse there are lessons here for modern policy makers. The Bush administration's drive (shared with the previous two incumbents) for 'global hegemony', the strategy to prevent the emergence of rival superpowers, seems old fashioned in an era of "fouth generation" warfare, non-state terrorism and globalisation. So maybe FDR's folly is being repeated by a new generation.
   
   Nisbet's book makes the lesson clear and concise. Highly recommended.

5 comments about Radha: Diary of a Woman's Search.

1. Swami Sivananda is my guru's guru's guru. Swami Radha is a peer of my guru's guru.
   
   It is so wonderful to read of women yogis - those who can and do tread the Dharmic path successfully.
   
   This is a wonderful read that transmits more than the words in print.



2. An intimate and detailed narrative. Highly recommend it to anyone interested in Radha's life and in yoga in general.



3. Uplifting journal like account from a white womans perspective.
   great read on the yogic path.



4. This is a great snapshot of the internal world of a spiritual transformation. Swami Radhananda gives a gripping account of a few months studying meditation in India. She is very frank with her mistakes and experiences. If you liked Autobiography of a Yogi, you will enjoy this book.



5. An uplifting, inspiring, enthralling diary. Recommended by Mas Vidal in Yoga Journal, I bought the book, and read the entire thing in one sitting. You will be left with an uplifted, peaceful spirit. I only wish I could have met Radha while she was still alive.

5 comments about Cod: A Biography of the Fish That Changed the World.

1. Kurlansky takes the reader on a voyage from the beginning of the cod fishing industry through its almost complete collapse due to overfishing. He explores the effect of the industry on colonization of the New World, the Revolutionary War, slavery and more. This book was written first to show the important place cod has in the history of the world and second to warn of what can happen to natural resources if they are limitlessly exploited. This book was well written and easy to read, it was almost like reading a novel. Kurlansky added interest by including six hundred years of cod recipes, putting one at the beginning of every chapter and a section at the end of the book. A main strength of the book was that it covered a significant amount of history in very few pages. The only weakness of the book was that there were no endnotes or footnotes which left me unable to easily find the origin or support of information presented. My overall evaluation of this book is that is was very informative while still being enjoyable to read. I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in natural history, ecology, fish, or conservation.



2. An interesting perspective on not just the poor cod but of all of the great creatures in the sea on which humankind has feasted over the centuries.



3. I must clarify. I am not a big lover of fish in the first place, so I am biased. But I come away from this book wanting a lot more (more information about the fish wars, about how the moratorium is working, why the moratorium in Scandinavian water is working) and less information (recipes).
   
   I know, I am rating down what most people love this book for. But I wanted a more historical take then this book provided. If you are looking for lively reading and interesting cod recipes and a brief pre-cursor on Cod Fishing, then this is a your book. If you would like something more in depth, then this is not it.



4. It is difficult to imagine that the history of a fish would in any way be important or even enjoyable, but Mark Kurlansky pulls it off in COD.
   
   In this book, Kurlansky makes a compelling case that codfish was a driving force in many of histories turning points, including the discovery of America. With the need for the fish for everything form Spanish dinner tables to feeding Caribbean slaves, finding--and retaining--sources of cod becomes an imperative for nation after nation. Cod, it turns out, is a commodity worth dying for at many points in history.
   
   Kurlansky explores how cod made fortunes for Boston merchants, changes the economy of Iceland and kept generations of Newfoundland and Gloucester fishermen working. And he demonstrates how overfishing has undermined the economy of parts of New England and Canada.
   
   Chock full of interesting pictures and recipes for cod from various points in history, this book moves along at a good pace. It left me wanting more and I recommend it highly.



5. Mark Kurlansky has made something of a reputation for himself, writing whimsical histories of things which usually don't merit books. His first book in this vein, Salt, was something of a bestseller, and he's written a book on oysters since the current volume. However, today we're writing about Cod, a book which recounts the harvesting, or fishing, of a species of fish mostly from the Atlantic Ocean.
   
   Kurlansky spends most of the book recounting how these fish are caught, prepared, and consumed. The author spends considerable time dealing with the issues of over-fishing, the various controversies surrounding the ownership of the schools and shoals of fish. Each chapter concludes with a short section on preparing the fish, usually including an actual recipe, often from long ago.
   
   I enjoyed this book. I found it unusual, perhaps even unique, and it's a fresh look at history from a really different angle.

5 comments about Vera (Mrs. Vladimir Nabokov): A Biography.

1. This account of the relationship between the Nabokov's was a superb treasuer. No wonder it won the Pullitzer. The depth of the relationship between these two intellectuals was refreshing. Both people were very complex and loved each other deeply. Vera was everything to him and she was completely devoted to him and was always there for him through good and bad times. They were true soul mates.



2. Other writers have elaborated at length on the quality of the contents of VERA, so I'll refrain from that. I will note - and base my own recommendation on two qualities well-investigated by Schiff, and which I loved: this is a remarkable love story, between two of the 20th century's great intellectuals, and the glimpse into not one but two creative minds at work is priceless.
   
   And Schiff does great justice to the everyday details of this collaborative relationship, with day-to-day qualities other writers would take for granted made compelling.
   
   Perhaps a book for Nabokov's fans, but a great one for sure.
   
   -David Alston



3. Since you are inviting me to submit a review of the book that you have not yet shipped to me, I hope this note will help you to revise -- and improve -- your business procedures. My rating, therefore, applies to the latter, not the book itself; I would've let the rating field empty had the system let me do so.
   Yours,
   BGV



4. Vera Nabakov was totally devoted to her husband, to his life and to his work. Stacy Schiff's excellent biography tells their story in considerable detail. Vera Slonim the daughter of a wealthy Jewish family in marrying Nabakov made her religion his life and his art. She took upon herself many of the practical tasks that Nabakov disdained. They developed between themselves a private language in which they shared their own unique synashaetic way of feeling the world. She typed and read his manuscripts, found quotations for him helped him create one of the twentieth century's great literary oeuvres.



5. it was a very good biography, but if you read the Boyd bio of her husband first you may be left wondering if he had already snatched up all the good quotes.

5 comments about Ronald Reagan.

1. "Ronald Reagan: Fate, Freedom and the Making of History" is a philosophical study of Ronald Reagan and his place in history. It is not a true biography but employs biographical details to support its points.
   
   Through much of this book I was unsure whether its purpose was to praise Reagan or to debunk his myth. Author John Patrick Diggins cites facts about Reagan to dispute many of the conventional wisdoms about him. He claims that Reagan was not as conservative or as hawkish as is widely believed. He delves into Reagan's days with General Electric, his confrontations with campus radicals in Sacramento, negotiations with Gorbachev, his flirtations with Nicaraguan Contras and Jonas Savimbi of Angola. He presents Reagan as an Emersonian idealist whose distrust of big government guided his political career. At times it is not clear whether Diggins is concluding that Reagan is a hero or a failure. Ultimately he finds Lincolnesque qualities in his subject.
   
   This is not a first book for one searching for the Reagan lore. For biographies, look elsewhere. After you have absorbed those, look here for a deeper dip into the philosophical underpinnings of the Reagan Revolution.



2. For the most part, the biographies that have been written about Ronald Reagan in the years since he left office have suffered from one of two defects. Either they have been overly critical and dismissive and failed to grasp the truly revolutionary aspects of the Reagan Presidency, or they have been overly worshipful, something more akin to adulation than real scholarship. In both cases, the differing interpretations of Reagan have likely been based on ideological differences and political resentments of the 1980s and beyond.In Ronald Reagan: Fate, Freedom, and the Making of History, John Patrick Diggins takes a worthy first step toward moving beyond either the worshipful or the hate-filled evaluations of the Reagan Presidency and gives America's 40th President the respectful, if not always positive, evaluation that he deserves.
   
   Reagan's singular achievement, Diggins argues, was the role he played in bringing a peaceful end to the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. Though he came into the White House with a promise to rebuild the American military and confronted what his advisers contended were Soviet-sponsored regimes in nations ranging from Nicaragua to Angola, it's clear that, very early in his Administration, if not before then, Reagan became committed to the idea of drastically reducing, if not eliminating, nuclear weapons.
   
   Much to the consternation of his neo-conservative foreign policy team, Reagan made overtures to the Soviets as early as April 1981, when he wrote a letter to Leonid Brezhnev while recovering from an assassination attempt. The Brezhnev dialog never went anywhere, largely because Brezhnev was apparently too stubborn and too ill to actually pursue serious negotiations. Similarly, the short-lived reigns of his two immediate successors made pursuing peace impossible. As Reagan himself once quipped, "They keep dying on me."
   
   It was only with the rise to power of Mikhail Gorbachev, who required reduced tensions with the U.S. to pursue his ultimately doomed strategy of reforming Communism, that Reagan was able to pursue his desire to bring both countries out of the horrifying doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction.
   
   One interesting thing that Diggins' book brings out is the extent to which many of Reagan's conservative supporters became convinced in the late 1980s that their leader had sold America down the river. Many of the same people who, on the occasion of his funeral in 2004, lionized him as the man who had "won" the Cold War. Among the critics were William F. Buckley, Jr., George Will, and Henry Kissinger, all of whom seemed convinced at the time that the Cold War and the tensions with the USSR were a permanent and irreversible fact (Jeane Kirkpatrick had in fact said as much in her writings prior to being named U.N. Ambassador).
   
   Reagan, Diggins, argued, never accepted the neo-conservative view of history and rejected the idea that the Cold War was a permanent fact of life that could only end with an exchange of nuclear missiles that would destroy both nations, if not most of the civilized world. In fact, rather than being a true conservative, Diggins persuasively argues that Reagan was really more of a traditional old-style liberal, what we would today call a libertarian, and that his ideas were influenced more by the libertarianism of Thomas Paine and the romanticism of Ralph Waldo Emerson than conservative hero Edmund Burke. While Reagan courted social conservatives and neo-cons, he did not share their views on the inherent sinfulness and fallibility of man.
   
   Diggins goes criticize some aspects of Reagan's record, most notably, in the domestic sphere, and he rightly criticizes him for the mis-handling of the Iran Contra affair. But, like I said, this is a biography not a hagiography. On the whole, though, Diggins does an excellent job of rescuing our 40th President from his detractors and his worshipers. Hopefully, other historians will follow suit.



3. There is already a vast amount of literature on the life of Ronald Reagan, and it shows no sign of abating. The 40th President of the United States is a continuing subject of fascination as the man who reasserted his country's superpower dominance, engineering the fall of communism and the end of the Cold War.
   
   His domestic policies, dominated by his passionate belief in small government and the ability of individuals to shape their own destinies, earned him the enmity of liberals, yet even on his own side of politics he is not the unquestioned hero as for example his contemporary, Margaret Thatcher, is among British conservatives.
   
   I recall a conversation with a retired American diplomat who preferred the unsuccessful 1964 Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater as the true founder of the modern conservative movement in the US, dismissing Reagan as an opportunist, a former Democrat who could see the way the wind was blowing, jumping on the bandwagon in the right place at the right time.
   
   John Patrick Diggins seeks to dismiss this argument. For him Reagan deserves to be rated alongside George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt as one of the greatest presidents of all time. He believes history will vindicate Reagan in the same way it did Lincoln, whose reputation was besmirched for many decades after his death, but more about that relationship later.
   
   The problem that Diggins and any other biographer of Reagan face is proximity. As the author states with some exasperation in the bibliographical notes, more than 80 per cent of the material in the presidential library remains classified and can be obtained only through the laborious and often unsuccessful method of applying under the Freedom of Information Act.
   
   Undeterred, he turns to other sources, notably the evidence emerging from Soviet archives of the relationship with the Soviet Union's last President, Mikhail Gorbachev, as well as the burgeoning amount of literature discussing the origins behind the sudden collapse of the Soviet Union two years after Reagan left office.
   
   The result is a scholarly, meticulously-researched book that seeks to understand not just the president of the 1980s, but the film actor of the 30s, 40s and 50s, the California Governor of the 60s and 70s and the man who passionately believed in a new beginning for his country - a rebirth that came to be called "Morning in America".
   
   For Diggins, the man who took office in January 1981 had three dragons to slay: the nuclear arms race that threatened the world with extinction; the expanding welfare state that increased dependency and lowered self-esteem and the third, most controversially "a joyless religious inheritance that told people their kingdom was not of this world and they needed to be careful about pursuing happiness in case they enjoyed it".
   
   This was hardly the language that the increasingly influential religious right would have wanted to hear but Reagan could see no conflict in embracing the rewards of this world - after all, it was what trade unions had been advocating for their members for half a century. He may have been ushering in the decade of Wall Street and `Greed is Good', but it is the author's insistence that the president wanted Americans to enjoy the pursuit of wealth and not be ashamed of the bounty they accumulated. It was, Diggins asserts, a necessary step in order to restore Americans' confidence in themselves after the debacle of the Vietnam War, Watergate, the Iran hostages humiliation and a decade of economic malaise.
   
   Diggins does not hold back on the obvious black marks of the Reagan presidency, most notably the Iran Contra scandal, occurring deep into Reagan's second term and at least partially resorting from the arrogance that comes from years of unbroken power.
   
   As with the Nixon presidency 15 years previously, there had been the subtle growth of a macho `can do' culture with little regard for moral or ethical objections. The difference being that Reagan quickly shouldered the blame in a televised mea culpa address in which the Great Communicator was at his best: "A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not...what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated in its implementation into trading arms for hostages."
   
   I take issue with the final chapter in which the author seeks to link Reagan even closer to Lincoln by likening Reagan's battle against communism to Lincoln's struggle to free the slaves. It is for readers to follow Diggin's closely argued reasoning and come to their conclusions, but the fact is Lincoln went to war not to free slaves but to save the Union and that the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 was a ploy to turn foreign opinion against the Confederacy and disrupt it internally at a time when the conflict was going badly for the North.
   
   However, it is certainly worth noting that the Cold War was won bloodlessly while the Civil War resulted in the deaths of more Americans than have been killed in all conflicts combined in the century-and-a-half since.
   
   There are times when this book stumbles into academic denseness, and I am unconvinced that Diggins has made his case for Reagan to be elevated to the heights of the presidential pantheon, but for those seeking an insight into the mind of the man who radically altered the face of American politics, it is to be recommended.



4. The dust jacket of this biography claims that John Patrick Diggins is one of America's "most interesting intellectual historians". This description gets two things right - Mr. Diggins is interesting, and Mr. Diggins is undoubtedly a historian. Whether he is much of an intellectual is another matter.
   
   Mr. Diggins' thesis is a peculiar and engaging one - that Reagan is one of the greatest Presidents of our nation, and also one of the most Emersonian, classically liberal Presidents of our time. Diggins, however, does not quite manage to provide definitive proof for either claim, though he does a better job of proving Reagan's intellectual roots than of proving his greatness. The reason for this failure, unfortunately, is not a problem with Diggins' scholarship, but rather an unfortunate case of self-sabotage which begins to show in the latter half of the book. During this section, one wonders if Diggins himself doubts his own thesis. In fact, one wonders if Diggins actually wanted to write a book with said thesis, or if the original argument he wanted to make was as follows: "Ronald Reagan is not a conservative, but even if he was, conservatives can't beat communism in the long run, anyway. Ha ha ha. Neener neener neener."
   
   To this end, many passages within the book are unabashedly, obnoxiously didactic. In fact, one often feels as though one is reading a philosophical essay meant to impugn the purity of American conservatism, rather than a biography of a conservative figure. One of the more absurd of these moments comes near the very end, when Diggins tries to impugn Reagan's conservatism by contrasting his vision with that of Edmund Burke. There are two problems with this analysis - firstly, Diggins misinterprets Burke's quote about the necessity of restraint for rights as implying that a paternalistic government is required to stop people from being greedy. What Burke was actually talking about, of course, was the tendency of people to believe they have a right to everything they want - a dangerous tendency, which often leads to things like the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which contradicts itself numerous times). The second problem with this analysis, however, is that Mr. Diggins is assuming that conservatism's nature has not changed at all since Edmund Burke. It is not as though Burke sat down and wrote out a "Constitution of Conservatism". Many conservative thinkers, in fact, believe that deriving a contemporary position from Edmund Burke's writings is impossible. It doesn't help, of course, that Burke was from England, and the conservative tradition in England is almost completely non-applicable to America.
   
   Furthermore, Diggins seems determined to convince his audience that Reagan was not really all that religious, as though there is something shameful in one of our greatest presidents being religious. Diggins also seems fixated on Reagan's fiscal policy, which he often links with the words "greed" and "selfishness." Finally, though Diggins initially credits Reagan with ending the cold war, he later throws in backhanded implications that it had more to do with Gorbachev than Reagan. It is as though Diggins wrote his thesis that Reagan was one of our greatest Presidents and then choked on it and had to go back and assure his readers that while Reagan was one of our greatest Presidents, he was still the selfish, shortsighted clod that Academics envision him to be.
   
   The existence of these flaws is unfortunate, because the book is historically excellent and so readable that it almost rivals a Harry Potter novel. Ultimately, I must recommend the book, with reservation. I give Mr. Diggins three stars for interesting history, and no stars for his intellectual pretensions. It is a pity. If Mr. Diggins had the courage to stick to his original thesis rather than frantically reassure his audience that he was not one of those awful Reagan-loving freaks, we might be reading the best Reagan biography yet.



5. Dr. Diggins seems to be an erudite, intelligent man who put some serious time into researching his book. The other reviewers have rightly praised his efforts to look at Reagan through the lense of history and not idealogy, and for his ranking of Reagan with Roosevelt and Lincoln among our greatest presidents.
   
   At the same time, I must confess that having recently read the Reagan Diaries as well as other books dealing with the Reagan legacy like Victory, Bill Bennett's recent second history volume, Reagan "In His Own Hand" etc., I must find that some of the conclusions drawn in this book diverge from the facts and tread familiar academic paths of thought about our great President.
   
   The final negotiations that ended the Cold War occured PRECISELY because Reagan worked on every front to thwart the Soviets. This included Bill Casey flying all over the world covertly, actions to stop Soviet technology acquisition, efforts to make them spend money they didn't have on defense, and a lot more. Reagan mentions anti-communist efforts on a daily basis in the diaries. Also, the preposterous comment that Reagan did nothing to support Solidarity is false on its face - not making speeches about something (even though he did) does not mean inaction. Again, his diaries reveal many efforts on behalf of Solidarity, and Walesa himself gives Reagan great credit for his support. The fact remains that Reagan didn't alter or change his demands on the Soviets when Gorbachev came to power - the final agreement reached was the US STARTING POSITION on disarmement years earlier. His strong stance in negotiations and the arms build up (laughably described as starting under the Carter administration in the book - are you kidding?) drove the Soviets to the table because they literally could not afford to fight anymore. Fighting them on every front was intended from the beginning to realize this result. It is as Reagan described before he became President - his view of the cold war was "we win and they lose".
   
   On a philosophical point, Diggins rightly remarks that Reagan often acted against the conservatives of his time's wishes. This does not make him somehow "less" conservative - just proven right in the argument. All idealogies are constantly in these debates, and Reagan comments on his reviews on the right constantly in his diaries as well, since he was such an avid reader of their writings. Just because the greatest conservative of the last fifty years didn't agree with every midget wonk at National Review or in congress is a comment on the midgets, not him. The line between "classical" and contemporary liberalism also seems to blur in his discussions. Yes, many current conservative thoughts on freedom and liberty are classicly liberal views (as many liberal statist views are classicly conservative), the modern distinctions are all that really matter in current discussion.
   
   I started to read this book with great enthusiasm, as its take on Reagan seemed fresh and interesting, but as I saw conclusion after conclusion follow other tired academic views on Reagan and contradict what I had read him say in his own hand were his views and thoughts, I found it ultimately unhelpful.

No comments about Lost Civilizations: The Mangnificent Mayans Remnants of Glory and Genius (Audio Adaptations of the Time Life Book Series).

No comments about Someone Who Was.

4 comments about Voyage to Mars.

1. While Laurence Bergreen's book "Voyage to Mars" does contain some information about Mars space missions, robotic probes, and scientific study of Mars, it is primarily about the scientists, both men and women, who study Mars and design experiments for NASA robotic explorers and how they dedicated their lives to the study and exploration of this planet. Most of the book covers the people involved in Mars research since the Mars Observer failure in 1992.

   This book follows the lives (personal and professional) of several NASA scientists who study Mars, whether they're off in some remote location studying geology that's similar to Mars or designing an experiment for a robotic exploration mission. The book includes the many battles that each one fights, whether is with NASA bureaucracy, their personal lives, with each other for experiments to be flown on an upcoming Mars spacecraft, or dealing with each other's conflicting theories on Martian geological history. One of the things that I gleaned from reading this book is that while each of the people maybe specialized in a given area, they all have a board background in planetary sciences and spacecraft design. Also, there seems to be a lot jealously between scientists, especially for those people who worked on the "Life on Mars" Rock. It was also nice to see that a good portion of the people that NASA employs are women.

   Since I've known several of the people involved in Mars research who are described in this book for over a decade, I can definitely say that the stories presented are true and I found the personal descriptions of various individuals to be dead on as well as those of NASA facilities. The book could, however, benefit from some photos and illustrations instead of the detailed of various Martian geological features. It also would have been nice to some parts of the book devoted to the engineers who help make these missions possible, but that might be an inappropriate topic for this book.




2. Bergreen's book is a very intimate look at how science really works. In successive chapters, he takes us inside four groups of men and women: the team of scientists that worked on the Martian meteorite ALH84001; the Mars Pathfinder/Sojourner team, the team in charge of the Mars Global Surveyor's laser altimeter, and finally, inside Dan Goldin's NASA. What we see is a far cry from the polished interviews on TV, or the neatly written articles in Nature or Science. The truth is that scientists rarely agree on anything other than very broad assumptions, and often not even on those. Instead, scientists, even those working together on the same project, can heatedly disagree with one another's assumptions or interpretations, making it difficult to agree on the best way data should be released to the public.

   An example from the MGS laser altimeter team (specifically the Mars Orbiter Laser Altimeter or MOLA). This instrument shoots blasts of laser light from the orbiting spacecraft to the surface of Mars, and times their return to the sensor. By doing so, an incredibly accurate topographical relief map of Mars can be created. However, Mars has no absolute altitude marker like Earth (sea-level). Therefore, the scientists have to agree on an altitude reference against which all other measurements are compared. The specific reference chosen is critical because it will be used in all subsequent analyses of MOLA data. Any error could potentially be a spoiler for generations of future reserachers. Bergreen was there when they discussed whether they were ready to commit to an altitude reference and start releasing data (many team members argued "yes!") or whether more data and study were needed before the team published such critical information (other team members said "wait!").

   Also typical was the conflict in choosing a landing site for the Mars Polar Lander. Scientists pour over the data from MGS and pick a site that is geologically interesting. Engineers pour over the MGS data and pick a site that is safe. The two goals are often at direct odds with one another. The engineers want stastical rock-counts so that they can ensure their craft won't topple over a boulder. Scientists argue that the sites chosen by the engineers will nullify all the science objectives of the mission. Such discussions can quickly become personal as emotions boil over and passionate beliefs give way to shouting contests.

   Bergreen's book is in many ways reminiscent of Overbye's Lonely Hearts of the Cosmos, only directed at Planetary scientists instead of cosmologists. This book will be of extreme interest to Marsophiles, but will also be enlightening to those who want an inside look at Dan Goldin's NASA, or at the process actually followed by scientists in the trenches. I recommend this book highly to these two groups as well as anyone else who hasn't updated their knowledge of Mars exploration since Viking.




3. Although on the surface this is a book about the recent robotic missions to Mars, the book is really an exploration of the culture of the project scientists at NASA and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Bergreen paints very full portraits of many key people involved in NASA, JPL, etc including the scientists, graduate students, industry representatives, etc. The book reminded me very much of Jim Watson's excellent account of his work to elucidate the structure of DNA, "The Race for the Double Helix" in that it showed the human side of science. Jim Garvin, Jim Head, Sean Solomon, and the other scientists in this book seek good and solid data, but also (understandably) seek publications in prestigious journals to advance their careers. They worry openly about funding and grant support. Jim Garvin has what sounds like a strained relationship with his wife, who does not really seem to understand her husband's passion and dedication. Some of the investigators don't like each other, and show this openly. These sorts of interludes were very interesting as many books about science and scientists are sterile and portray scientists as absent-minded-professor types who are not grounded in the real world (which is only very rarely the case).

   The book is very readable and well written. My only complaint is that the book would have benefited from some illustrations. The images from the Mars Orbiter were discussed ad nauseum, but no representative images were between the covers of the book! Also, I would have liked to have seen a few photos of some of the hardware and researchers discussed.




4. Travelers often opine that the experience of a trip itself, the way stations and characters encountered, rather than the final destination, is the most exciting aspect of a journey. After reading Laurence Bergreen's latest offering, VOYAGE TO MARS: NASA'S SEARCH FOR LIFE BEYOND EARTH (hardcover edition), one may reasonably conclude that the peripatetic author is as fascinated with the personas and psyches of the various individuals he encounters along the way as he is with the ostensible subject of the book: Mars. Indeed, a glance at Bergreen's previous books, works covering the gamut from Al Capone to Louis Armstrong to Irving Berlin, shows that the author is a keen observer and no stranger to character studies; his most recent book is no exception.

   Bergreen's tour, which starts on Surtsey, a volcanic island off the Icelandic coast, eventually ends on Mars. Throughout, he manages to weave an interesting narrative, replete with detailed personal observations of the scientists and engineers he encounters along the way, which is interspersed with some fairly decent Mars science written in layspeak. The author recounts the often-rancorous Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) Mars Orbiter Laser Altimeter (MOLA) team meetings and the clash of egos between scientists pushing their own competing theories and hypotheses about Mars. He encounters scientists in the nascent astrobiology community, some of who are veterans from the Viking mission to Mars of the mid-1970's, and who have bittersweet memories of the main finding from that mission, namely that Mars was a lifeless world. He smoothly segues into the modern view (based on more recent analyses) that the question of life on Mars, either extant or extinct, may not be a closed issue. The reader is caught up in the excitement and the glimpses into the inner sanctum, which is made all the more fascinating because the subject is the Red Planet. The reading is pleasurable (I read the entire book in two sittings) and insightful, but there are a few problems. As a scientist, I am trained to be alert to what is termed "observational bias", which, upon careful reading, appears to raise its head in the pages of the book. It is almost axiomatic that scientists, as well as science teams, tend to be very competitive. So it is not surprising that Bergreen appears to view the world primarily through the prism of the MOLA team. Indeed, he seems to accept their characterizations of others (especially competitors on the other MGS science teams); an interesting parallel to Stockholm syndrome. Additionally, given that Bergreen is really not a "participant" in the normal sense of the word, there are the inevitable factual errors (mostly minor) that are sprinkled throughout the book. Without wanting to appear as a nitpicker, I'll list a few that came to my attention:

   Page 104: "...the same moment in 1993 when Mars Observer slipped behind Mars and never resumed contact with Earth." Fact: The failed Mars Observer spacecraft lost contact with Earth three days BEFORE Mars Orbit Insertion and Earth occultation.

   Page 104: "For the first time in twenty-one years, a spacecraft [Mars Global Surveyor] was orbiting Mars." Fact: The author is apparently unaware of the Soviet Phobos 2 spacecraft, which successfully entered Mars orbit on January 29, 1989, although the spacecraft was lost in March of 1989 when controllers lost contact while it was approaching its primary target, Phobos, the larger of the two Martian moons.

   Page 111: "...[Mars Observer] and finally launched in 1991." Fact: Mars Observer launched in 1992.

   Page 114: "He's [Malin] a member of the MOLA team." Fact: Dr. Michael C. Malin is Principal Investigator for the Mars Orbiter Camera team and a Co-Investigator for the Thermal Emission Spectrometer team; he is not a member of the MOLA team, and would therefore normally not be expected to attend their meetings. This "factual error" by the author is less innocuous than it appears and perhaps was colored by observational bias accruing from his association with the MOLA team. Moreover, the misidentification is used to strengthen his claims that Malin is secretive, elusive, one who holds onto data, and one who does not respond to email, etc., which do not appear to be well-supported by the facts, although one can easily believe that the MOLA team encouraged this view. In fairness, though, it is possible that the author simply confused membership on the MOLA team with membership on the much larger and more inclusive MGS Project Science Group.

   Page 138: "...and the Journal of Geophysics Review." Fact: After checking with the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) online database, I discovered that no such journal exists. It is likely that the author confused two separate journals, the Journal of Geophysical Research and Geophysical Research Letters, both of which are key publications for planetary scientists.

   Page 205: "Stardust will swing around Mars..." Fact: The Stardust spacecraft did not and will not "swing around Mars." It does, however, travel beyond Mars' orbit, but never comes closer than several million kilometers to the Red Planet at any time during its baseline mission.

   Page 216: "And a little camera will pop up..." Fact: The author, while apparently describing a portion of the mission profile for the two Deep Space 2 penetrators (part of the failed Mars Surveyor 98 mission), incorrectly describes their instrument packages. There was no camera aboard either of the impact probes; however, Bergreen may be referring to the Surface Stereo Imager, a camera system aboard the Mars Polar Lander.

   Despite these errors (which might have been eliminated by more careful proofreading and better research), the book is a fascinating read and, given the relative lack of publicity on the subject, a good source of information on the current state of Mars exploration efforts. If for no other reason, though, I would recommend the book for its introduction to the reader of some of the key figures in Mars exploration, past and present, which gives a personality to the often obscure names that are only found in science journals.

3 comments about The Lost Days of Agatha Christie.

1. I was surprised to find out that Ms. Christie herself had a mystery surrounding her disappearance in 1926, so I was interested to find this book. But I would have called it, "The Agatha and the Ecstasy."



2. The queen of mystery biggest mystery was her own. It was incredible to me to find out that Agetha had a mystery of her own that she could not solve. Doctor Owens approach to solving Agetha's mystery was fascinating and a real page turner. It was the most uniqe books I've ever read. Using Agetha history and passages from her books to coherently solve a previously unsolved mystery was a stroke of brillance. Dr. Owens takes us on an intelletual ride that keeps you interested from the first to the last page. The solution was so satisfing that I felt 100% confident that the ultiment mystery was finally solved. YOU WILL HAVE TO READ IT FOR YOURSELF TO BE LET IN ON THE SECRET! The solution and writting is something that Augetha would be proud to have authored herself 5 STARS!



3. The Lost Days is not an easy read, but if you are interested in solving the mysteries of the human mind and the mystery of Agatha Christie's disappearance in 1926, The Lost Days is a very satisfying experience. Author Owens, a therapist, has done a very interesting thing, she has taken Agatha on as a client and the therapy session solves a seventy-year-old mystery as no one else ever has including the great Queen of Mysteries, Agatha herself.

No comments about George and Elizabeth: A Royal Marriage.