5 comments about The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War.

1. For my entire life I was a hard-core Republican. I loved Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh. I read DiLorenzos terrific book How Capitalism Saved America but I still remained a neo-conservative. I hesitated to get this book, but boy am I glad I did. Since then I realized that I have been lied to my entire life. I started reading DiLorenzos and Thomas Woods archives at LewRockwell (dot) com and became a Libertarian. I have bought this book for all of my friends and relatives. I converted my Republican brother and friend who are Civil War re-enactors. As my friend said, "I have only read two chapters and am convinced!"
   
   By the way, one historian reviewed the book and said that a quote is out of context in the book where Lincoln supposedly said blacks can't be equal, only Siamese twins can ever be equal. DiLorenzo has said that he went back and found that the quote is out of context because he got it from a secondary source, and the secondary source got it wrong, so he will remove the quote if there is a future edition of the book. That should tell you that DiLorenzo is honest, and that all of his other quotes are in context.



2. At the height of his influence, many deemed him to be one of the worst tyrants the world had ever seen. He incarcerated 15,000 of his fellow citizens because they disagreed with his war policy. He had his army shut down newspapers and destroy the presses for any papers that wrote against him. He declared martial law and arrested political opponents without a warrant or trial and kept them locked up for years. His Secretary of State bragged that he could have any citizen jailed "at the snap of a finger." He had one Congressman who disagreed with him deported to another country. Then oversaw a war that led to 620,000 deaths...all within his own country. When half of the country sought to escape, they were forced to remain in the Nation.....or be slaughtered in mass for seeking liberty. In essence they were forced to remain citizens at the point of a bayonet. He ordered cities to be burned. Farms to be destroyed. Civilians, including women and children, to be bombed and executed. He was one of the most hated men in history.....and one of the most beloved. His name? Abraham Lincoln.
   If the above paragraph shocked you, then you might consider reading a book entitled The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, By Thomas Dilorenzo.
   While Lincoln is perhaps not as evil as this book presents, one can't escape the reality that Lincoln took some very harsh and unnecessary measures during the Am Civil War. Ironically, the majority of Americans in both the North and South were in favor of a peaceful secession in 1860. The North wanted separated from the South just as bad as the South did from the North. Yet Lincoln would hear nothing of it. Dilorenzo makes a rather compelling case for the economic motivations behind the war, given the fact that the South was paying roughly 80% of the Nation's expenses through tariffs, while the North was reaping the majority of the benefits in terms of bridge and railroad construction.
   Furthermore, in Lincoln's first inaugural address, he stated clearly that he had no interest in freeing the slaves in the South and had no constitutional right to do so. When he reversed course and issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, he confided to his cabinet that it was simply a "war measure" meant to spark a slave insurrection in the South. Though most people don't realize it, the Emancipation Proclamation only granted freedom to slaves in the South. Slaves in the North were not granted freedom because their Masters had been loyal to the Union. William Seward, Lincoln's Secretary of State bemoaned at the time that the act was worthless having "freed slaves that we no longer have jurisdiction over...while keeping in bondage those slaves that we do." Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and even parts of Louisiana were under Federal control by 1863, and were thus allowed to keep their slaves. That seems to be one of those quirks of history that has been forgotten. Or as Dilorenzo contends....glossed over by the victors.
   Dilorenzo, who is an Economics Professor at Loyola College (Maryland), writes in a very readable style as he makes his case that slavery should have been abolished by compensated emancipation as done in Britain, Brazil, and many other countries during the 1800s. The forward to the book was written by Dr. Walter Williams, Economics Professor at George Mason University, and frequent fill in host for Rush Limbaugh (and incidentally, an African-American). Furthermore, he contends that the South should have been allowed to secede peacefully....as our colonial fathers did when faced with an overbearing British taxation system. Had this happened, Dilorenzo contends that the North would have been forced to change their overbearing tax structure, and eventually North and South would have reunited with a much more solid and efficient government. But what in fact did happen was the centralization of federal government power to the extent that the Constitution was repeatedly ignored leading to the Federal albatross that exists today.
   The argument between a massive Federal government vs. individual state sovereignty goes back to our founders. Thomas Jefferson was famous for saying that the government that "governs best is the one that governs least." In other words, the Federal government's job is to protect the citizens and insure they're given the freedom to purse life, liberty, and happiness. Jefferson's primary opponent was Alexander Hamilton, who sought to have a strong Federal government that dictated things to the individual states and the citizens thereof. Jefferson's followers fought against this (rightfully so), given the fact that they had just escaped tyrannical government control from Britain during the American Revolution.
   As the course of our Nation progressed, the Hamiltonians, led by Lincoln, eventually gained control and vastly expanded the Federal government during the Civil War. By 1865 and the end of the Civil War, states right's had virtually ceased to exist, and the Federal government, which was CREATED BY the states, had become the ruling King of American government. Ironically, the states had created a monster and now that monster would rule over them for the next 143 years (and counting).
   The great irony in all of this is that the two predominant political parties have swapped sides in the area of government control. Today, it is the Democrat party that seeks higher taxes and more Federal control over the lives of its citizens. While the Republicans seek a smaller government with more individual liberty.
   In conclusion, I would heartily recommend the reading of this book. Its insights into our Nation's history are illuminating to say the least. You may not agree with every position taken, but the book does promise to make you think long and hard about governmental and constitutional issues. And it gives a pretty clear road map for the bureaucratic mess that we find our federal government mired in today. History kind of has a way, sometimes, of making people seem better (or worse) than they really were. I suspect this is true of Lincoln as well. While he had some admirable qualities, he was certainly not above political posturing or deceit, as is documented in this work. So check out a copy of The Real Lincoln...and prepare to be challenged.



3. To all those who think that George Bush is a dictator, consider reading a book that details the beginning of the centralization of power in this country.



4. The great counter-balance to the Cult of Lincoln. Throw out all of your orgasmic adoration for old Abe, this work will replace them all.



5. Lincoln had been my "favorite president" throughout my life based on the history taught in high school and college, but no more.
   
   This book opened my eyes to the other side of this American icon, the side responsible for the centralization of our once democratic government.
   
   Very easy to read - see for yourself.

2 comments about Zachary Taylor: The 12th President, 1849-1850 (The American Presidents).

1. Eisenhower handles Taylor's military career and his exploits in the Mexican War very neatly and offers selections from other Taylor biographers like Hamilton and Bauer to aid his case and offer the casual reader alternate windows into the life. A very neat summary of a very brief administration, Eisenhower's account never seems rushed or unduly cursory. The books in the American Presidents series vary wildly in quality. This particular volume is not a breath-taking small gem like Hans Trefousse on Hayes or a specialist treasure like Ira Rutkow's book on Garfield, but Eisenhower nevertheless provides a splendid small book on an unfortunately overlooked president.



2. Another home run in the superb American President's series. John Eisenhower paints a picture of Zachary Taylor that leaves us wishing he was among today's candidates for President. Had he lived, he may have been able to head off the Civil War, we will never know. In short, a great biography of a great man.

5 comments about A Tale of Love and Darkness.

1. This is a beautiful and moving memoir from a sensitive and humanistic writer of great skill and style. The reader will feel that he or she is personally experiencing growing up with the author in the most modest and simple circumstances, in the young State of Israel, from before statehood and into its early years, getting to know as friends and neighbors some of its intellectual leaders who were the writer's family members and friends. The book is a sheer delight, and highly recommended.



2. This mixture of biography with the history of the birth and growth of Israel is a wonderful, warm , and poignant tale--well worth one's time.



3. This memoir by the Israeli novelist Amoz Oz is a fascinating depiction of both European and Israeli Jews. Although the author was born in Israel, his parents and relatives were all European Jews displaced by the events leading up to World War II.The graphic depiction of what anti-semitism does to an individual explains the need for a Jewish state more fully than any essay could, and the history of the first war against the Jews by the Arabs, aided openly by the British army which then controlled Palestine, and which started the very evening in November, 1947 of the U.N. vote to establish a Jewish homeland, not, as I previously thought, in May, 1948, when the state of Israel was officially declared, lends credence to the unfortunate belief that the Arabs will never accept the state of Israel. This makes the book sound incredibly sad, and of course it is in one sense. But in another, by creating the milieu of these early settlers in Jerusalem and their intellectual strengths and interests, and also the new Jew of the kibbutz, to which Oz went after the death of his mother and his father's remarriage, and where he lived and wrote for 30 years, the book turns out to be the best one I have read about this frantic period of Jewish history.



4. Pearls of wisdom, interspersed with lovingly told family stories, including the horrors of loss and ongoing pain, and the history of a nation and people. Regretfully, these trite phrases don't do justice to what Oz has created in this memoir. This book is multi-layered in a way that seems to replicate the very act of memory itself, as past events show and return to told memory, through the scrim of the story at hand. It's a book to read and live with and it is an honor to be able to spend some time with this book and writer.



5. This 500+ page memoir by Israeli novelist Amos Oz is an absorbing "Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man." The first 200 pages are about his mother's and fathers' families, Russian-speaking emigrants to Israel in the 1930s from Eastern Europe. An only child, he devotes much of the rest of the book to his parents and the years until his mother's death when he was still a teenager. It is a richly detailed book peopled with a Dickensian cast of characters. He allows readers to experience a total immersion in the daily life of a low-income Jerusalem neighborhood during the years leading up to and following the creation of Israel in 1948. It is a troubling story, capturing on the one hand the intensely felt emotions of being young, self-aware, and sensitive, while portraying also the humiliations and the least flattering of the author's personality and character, all played against the difficulties of his parents' lives and what seems to have been a disintegrating marriage.
   
   Meanwhile, with its view of anti-semitic nationalism in Europe, readers can begin to understand something of the motivations driving zionist movements and the waves of Jewish settlement in Palestine before and after WWII. As Oz records the political discussions and obsessions of the friends of his parents, it's easier to understand the insularity and paranoia that led to the need for a homeland with defended borders and the eventual efforts to achieve military solutions to conflict with Palestinians and Arab neighbors. Though recognized today as a peace activist, Oz provides only hints of his evolution to a broader view, describing only his complete break with his past by leaving home for a kibbutz at the age of 15. As a companion memoir, readers will also be interested in "Once Upon a Country: A Palestinian Life," by Sari Nusseibeh.

3 comments about Julius Caesar.

1. This book was written for someone who has never read and Roman History. Since I thought this was a new book, with new information, I was not happy to be reading a book that treats it's reader like a novice. Nothing new. there are better books, including Colleen McCullough's series.



2. Prior to reading this book, I knew very little about Caesar and next to nothing about the Roman Republic. This book certainly changed that. Personally, I'm a fan of history in its purest form: meticulously researched, free of romantic speculation, and presented as objectively as possible. However, even though this book is written more like an action novel than a textbook, I enjoyed it wholeheartedly. I couldn't put the book down and despite being a fairly slow reader, finished the book in 2 days. I highly recommend this to anyone looking to get started with Roman history and anyone else merely looking for a fast paced, action packed story of one of history's most incredible figures.



3. Philip Freeman's Julius Caesar is a fascinating and well-written book. Prior to reading Freeman's book, what I knew about Caesar I had learned from Shakespeare. While Shakespeare was a wonderful playwright, he was not a historian. Freeman's book provides a highly readable account of Caesar's fascinating life-- from master military leader and engineer (he designed, and he and his troops constructed, the first bridge across the deep, wide, and swiftly flowing Rhine in just a few days) to his years as chief priest of Rome when among other things he redesigned the calendar to the one we still basically use today. As I read the book, I was struck by the similarity of some of Caesar's campaigns to the present-day war in Iraq.
   
   As Freeman states in his introduction, his book doesn't come to "praise Caesar overmuch nor to bury him among the tyrants of history." Rather we are left to form our own opinion of this controversial man. I not only recommend this book to novice Caesar historians, such as myself, but also to more knowledgeable readers of ancient Rome who will undoubtedly learn something new about this remarkable man and his times.

5 comments about Hard Call: The Art of Great Decisions.

1. This is an excellent book. One of the finest, most thought-provoking books I have read.



2. McCain's book, moreso than that of other politicians, does give you a feel for how he would be as a president. His view of what is a hard call is very relevant.
   I do have a quibble in that early on he criticizes the faulty intelligence leading to the Iraq war, then closes the Niebuhr/Bonhoffer chapter under "Humility" with the suggestion they would possibly back the
   Iraq war today.
   But it does have a variety of history of an era that I lived through but did not pick up on during my childhood, and does give a view of the man.



3. So good, I wanted to share with my four grandsons by sending each his own personal copy with a note from Grandpa.



4. Bernie's review is great and I have voted for it. I am going to stop buying formula books that combine a politician's name with a staffer's library browsing. I was especially distressed to not find the world "intelligence" or its commercial equivalent, decision-support. There is nothing wrong with the content, but as someone who writes and reads broadly about intelligence and decision support under conditions of ambiguity, this book could not hold my attention. The small volume by David Boren, A Letter to America was for me much more satisfying.
   
   Ten other books I recommend:
   Blessed Unrest: How the Largest Movement in the World Came into Being and Why No One Saw It Coming
   The Tao of Democracy: Using Co-Intelligence to Create a World That Works for All
   The World Cafe: Shaping Our Futures Through Conversations That Matter
   The Cultural Creatives: How 50 Million People Are Changing the World
   Society's Breakthrough!: Releasing Essential Wisdom and Virtue in All the People
   Group Genius: The Creative Power of Collaboration
   The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid: Eradicating Poverty Through Profits (Wharton School Publishing Paperbacks)
   Collective Intelligence: Mankind's Emerging World in Cyberspace
   Collective Intelligence: Creating a Prosperous World at Peace



5. Who else but the ageing Michael Caine should play John McCain in the movie he's continuously making of his life? And the aspiring Commander in Chief shows every sign of a strong desire to take us all to Afghanistan and beyond, namely to Iran.
   
   Let me say quickly that I enjoyed the narrative chapters of this book. Mark Salter writes good, straightforward action prose. Who wouldn't enjoy reading about the high points in the lives of people like Neil Armstrong, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and Robert Gould Shaw? But the sermons at the head of each section, on Awareness, Foresight, Timing, Confidence, etc. - whether McCain wrote any of them or merely sketched the notions for Salter to full in - reminded me way too much of Polonius's advice to his son in Hamlet, that is "full of high sentence, but a bit obtuse." I was also mildly disgusted by McCain's gratuitous attempts to link himself to the heroism of his various subjects. For example, you can be sure that when Neil sets foot on the moon, John will remind us that he was a prisoner of war at the time. The result is that despite all, this comes across as a campaign biography, and a sequel at that, to JFK's Profiles in Courage.
   
   Does it tell us something we need to know about Senator John McCain, the Republican candidate for President? I think it does. He's a man of little modesty, a man who respects inflexibility much more than the ability to adjust and evolve. Shakespeare wrote in Twelfth Night: "Some men are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them." McCain writes about his heroes as if they were all born with the virtues he values. Obviously most of us are hoping for a President of the second sort, someone who can achieve greatness. But John McCain seems by his own writing to be the third sort, a fairly ordinary earnest guy who has had prominence thrust upon him.

5 comments about The Man Who Made Lists.

1. Interesting book abut the Peter Roget, the creator of the ubiquitous Thesaurus, but it is a dry read, jumps around. At times the book feels as if it were written by the Peter Roget it describes: emotionally absent the author simply narrates events in Roget's life.
   
   In the hands of a more skilled writer like Eric Larson this would have been a most excellent book. Like other reviewers have said, finishing it was a struggle, which I did out of interest purely in the subject matter.



2. A good utilitarian biography about a figure in history whose contributions are little thought about today. Roget, who created the Thesaurus at a time when there was nothing close to it and the need was great, also invented the modern slide rule led major scientific societies, and contributed to the natural sciences. A good handling of an unusual man, and well worth the time to learn about the man. My only real complaint is that Kendall seems to apply a 21st century sense of judgement on Roget's relationships (and difficulties therein). This sense may be somewhat due to the lack of cited evidence when such opinions are interjected.
   
   Still, a recommended read for a word maven, list keeper, organizer, or just to fill in a hole in one's knowledge of the movers and shakers of the early days of what became modern science.



3. I was disappointed in this book because I wanted to know all about the creation of Roget's Thesaurus and the author spends less than 10 pages (actually more like 5 pages) on that topic. In fact, by the time the book gets around to this topic, it is very close to the end.



4. I don't know how much of that was poor writing, how much of it was an often two-dimensional Roget, and how much of that was lack of source materials.
   
   I vote primarily for the former, though.
   
   Given the amount of near-psychotic depression in Roget's family, Kendall could have done much more interplay between that and Thesaurus categories than he actually did. Just telling us he was a "word person" rather than a "people person" could have been done in a book of 50-70 fewer pages.
   
   In short, Kendall didn't develop a good enough "hook" or work with it well enough.



5. Brevity is the soul of wit. The subject matter is incredibly interesting and the book is well researched. Unfortunately the book is poorly written, so much so that I am going to have to work rather hard to finish it.

5 comments about Plutarch's Lives, Volume 2 (Modern Library Classics).

1. Twain's pejorative definition of `classic' need not apply. I define classic as that (text) which speaks to the heart over an extended duration - perhaps for several generations, as in `classic rock', or several millennia, as in Plutarch's "Lives". I probably never would have read Plutarch, were it not for a glorious discovery of Montaigne in mid-life. Having acquired enough distaste for the copious demands required to master classical languages after five years of Latin in secondary school, I made an arbitrary and direly misguided vow to eschew all Classics courses at the university level. And thus again is revealed the fateful difference between post-modern (post-1945), and the modern (c. 1500 - August 5, 1945) pedagogy, of which I unwittingly, if serendipitously, caught the tail end. The modern cannon required thorough immersion in the classics, and, for many years, Plutarch was required reading in the best schools, and should be even now. The author of the Shakespearian plays came to Plutarch by way of Montaigne (and likely read the Amyot translation, and only later the North, if at all), and the English schools came to Plutarch by way of Shakespeare. We might say that the revival of Plutarch was one of the most far reaching achievements of the Northern Renaissance.
   At one point in his celebrated chronicle of the self, Montaigne (as a shaper and bona fide member of that cannon, guardian of some of what is best in our cultural inheritance) amusedly reveals that, when his critics believe they are attacking his work, they are actually attacking Plutarch and/or Seneca, so profound is their presence in his writing, and, in his "Defense of Plutarch and Seneca", he declares that . . . "my book [is] built up purely from their spoils".
   
   And what a book it is! But Plutarch's magnum (see the 14 volumes of the Loeb Classical Library for his other works), is the greater. Montaigne is one of the great students of the self. Plutarch is the first (and may yet still be the definitive) historian of virtue. Montaigne, in scrutiny of his own nature, seeks to recognize the limitations and potentials of the self, and thereby sketch our general spiritual contours. Plutarch, in an unparalleled series of real life, historically and culturally pivotal, examples, shows us what they are.
   
   The book records in the most remarkably intimate style (Plutarch has few peers as a master of narrative and an uncanny ability to ferret out of detail the significance of individual actions as a unified whole), the major events in the lives of the most impacting figures of the ancient world. Therefore, like the best novels, the book forms a world in itself, a lost world, the world of our ancestors, through a landscape drawn of actions and consequences. The structure of the book is such that an account of the seminal moments in the life of a noble Greek and then of a noble Roman are brought forth in pairs, followed by a comparison. In some sections of the work these comparisons are absent. They appear at some point in antiquity to have either been lost to or removed from the text, which would seem to explain why, for instance, there is no comparison of Alexander and Caesar. But the comparisons are brilliant, and eminently instructive.
   
   Of course, from the details alone, we may draw our own inferences. Alexander, as a mere teen, leading his troops in hand-to-hand combat, won his first battle fighting uphill at night. Caesar, a heavy drinker, was wont to ride horseback at full tilt with his hands clenched behind his back. He had a life-long passion for Cato's sister and it is said that from their relationship, which continued through their respective marriages, Brutus was born. Et tu? Of course, one cannot fail to mention, even in this briefest review of the abundantly rich description in the nearly 1,300 pages which comprise the book, the death of Cato the Younger - one of the most exquisitely drawn figures in the book. Hunted down with the remnants of his troops into the wastelands of Carthage by the army of Octavius Ceasar in an effort to snuff out the last vestiges of republican resistance and opposition to Empire, realizing that the last realistic hope for freedom is lost, Cato attempts ritual suicide (a Stoic custom common to Roman nobility) by disembowelment. As Plutarch describes the scene, ". . . he did not immediately die of the wound; but struggling, fell off the bed, and throwing down a little mathematical table that stood by, made such a noise that the servants, hearing it, cried out. And immediately his son and all his friends came into the chamber, where, seeing him lie weltering in his own blood, great part of his bowels out of his body, but himself still alive and able to look at them, they all stood in horror. The physician went to him, and would have put in his bowels, which were not pierced, and sewed up the wound; but Cato, recovering himself, and understanding the intention, thrust away the physician, plucked out his own bowels, and tearing open the wound, immediately expired." In Seneca's words: "For Cato could not outlive freedom, nor would freedom outlive Cato."
   
   However, the life most appropriate for the contemporary reader, I feel (and wish that every member of the shadowy corporate/military junta that seems to be ruling us these days would read and take to heart) is the life of Crassus. Crassus was the most successful businessman in the history of the Roman Empire. Plutarch relates that at one time he owned virtually one-third of the real estate in Rome. However, such mind-boggling success was not enough for him. His yen, and later, obsession, was to be revered as a great military leader, a world conqueror, expand the domain of the already burgeoning Empire, and the object of his fantasies was the area of the world at that time known as Mesopotamia and Persia, today as Iraq and Iran. We follow as he makes extensive preparations, investing his own fortune and a great deal of the nation's wealth into outfitting an army for the venture. And at first, the invasion of Mesopotamia seems to go well. But the centers of population are spread out over great stretches of desert, and the occupation never really succeeds, because a central authority cannot be solidly established. Crassus, however, remains undaunted, even though the troops are becoming mutinous as supplies begin to run thin. Led on by treacherous advisors, he enters Parthia (somewhere in the vicinity of modern day Syria). Plutarch describes the grueling denouement with his usual detachment, aplomb, and gifted eye for pertinent detail. Having lost the greatest fortune in the world, he proceeds to lose his troops, then his sons, and finally his life. These lessons are never too late for the learning, and my apologies to Twain, but a classic is a text which retains its urgency to be read, and read now.
   
   I read the Dryden/Clough translation. Dryden was never my favorite writer of his period, the late 17th century - hardly a match for Burton or Milton, in my opinion, but he was poet laureate, and this work I love - his English is fine, and resonates with classic dignity. Clough, the mid-nineteenth century British scholar who revised the translation, befriended Emerson when he traveled to England, and became a sort of mentor to the New England Transcendentalists in general. We can be grateful for such a wonderful rendering for one of the very greatest and edifying masterpieces.



2. A most concise volume of all the most important people of the Roman Empire.



3. Plutarch's parallel lives, parallels the life of a great Greek with a great Roman. Theseus and Romulus, Demosthenes and Cicero, Alexander and Ceasar. There are forty- six such pairs which tell not only the story of the individuals but of their society . Plutarch brings to bear his tremendous learning from a wide variety of sources . Plutarch's first interest is in the character of the people he writes about, and the moral lessons he can draw from comparison of the lives. His work has had great influence and provided inspiration and material to Shakespeare, Montaigne, Browning and others. The reading of the work is not always easy, and there are strange and questionably credible tales and details but the work is humanly alive. The reading and studying of it was once considered a basic part of true humanistic education, and not the confine of a few scholars in the classic departments of universities. It once had broad reader appeal and anyone with a keen interest in biography, and the subject of how lives have been lived in worlds far from our own, would do well if not to read this work cover- to- cover than at very least have a good read in it.



4. I have now plowed through the second and final volume of this series, and though my energy began to flag, I still think this is one of the great classics of all time. Though not exactly chronological, the stories in this volume tend to occur later than in the first volume and are often longer, which is understandable given that Julius Caesar and Alex the Great are covered in this volume. THe stories are also more intricately interwoven - you get lives that overlap, such as those of Brutus and Caesar, with slightly different takes and details in each one. The upshot of all this is that the serious reader will need to keep this around as a reference, going over the text again when some question of detail comes up or to refresh one's point of view. Plutarch's take on things is very different from that of many authors: he is a pro-aristocrat conservative and admiring of martial prowess, yet pro-Republican. Once again, the reader really needs to know the historical context before undertaking this. It is not at all introductory.

   Warmly recommended. Though it takes real effort at times to continue, it is well worth the slog.




5. Although it's a very good translation, I prefer to read the books of Plutarchos in the original Greek texts because the version of Dryden is now somewhat obsolete. And if you don't understand the ancient Greek language well, I recommend you to read several volumes of Plutarch in THE LOEB CLASSICAL LIBRARY.

5 comments about Write it When I'm Gone.

1. I dove in to this book expecting new and exciting revelations only to find.. not so much. Yes, it was interesting to learn what Jerry Ford really thought about his fellow Presidents (especially Reagan), but where are the bombshells?
   
   It was obvious that Mr. DeFrank admired Mr. Ford greatly. I too remember the healing effect Ford had on the country after Watergate and admire him. However, this author did not have enough material for an entire book. Redundancies abound. The same sentence often appears in different chapters. His description of the pivotal meeting with (then) Vice President Ford appears verbatim several times throughout the book.
   
   If this had been an article in a magazine, I could have rated it higher. Even without any real revelations.



2. Who ever knew that Gerald Ford could be so interesting? I read over 70 pages in just the first day I got it and did not want to put it down. This is not a straightforward biography for a change-there are plenty of those out there. This is personal insight into a man that rarely let us see that side of him. He was a man of good morals, was extremely intelligent, and if you can get past the whole Nixon pardon, he really did deserve a second term in office. Even though his presidency was short, those were some very interesting times and Gerald Ford was a big part of bringing the country back together after Watergate and Vietnam. It is great to have the authors perspective of traveling with him for so many years and interviewing him, and even building a friendship with President Ford. You feel like you are along for the ride. I am glad I purchased this as it is a totally different kind of political book than anything else I have ever read. It is an easy and quick read, and I HIGHLY recommend it to anyone interested in US history and/or the Office of The President. My only wish was that it was longer- did not want to get through it so quick !!!!



3. A wonderful read about a good and great man. If only this country had more such men, then maybe there would not be the huge political schism in Washington today. Ford was a healer, who could be bipartisan and establish a rapport with his political enemies. Maybe, that was because he had no real enemies, and many on both side respected him for what he was: a smart, honest politician who did not have a huge ego.
   
   In this short book, DeFrank shows that Ford was really who he said he was. He loved the Republican Party and would not tear it apart for his personal ambition. He loved his country and tried to find common cause with some polical opponents like Carter and Clinton. He loved his home city of Grand Rapids, Michigan. He was like most people: an average man thrust into the leadership of the free world.
   
   This is a nice read about a true American Gerald R. Ford. His presidential service was short and his life long, but he made a difference in American political life. DeFrank captures the true spirit of Jerry Ford.



4. This audio book far exceeded my expectations. The reader is very talented and the story is so honest. You come to realize that Gerald Ford was quite the public servant, leader and consumate gentleman. I highly recommend as it brought so much history to my own experiences.



5. There are descriptions galore on this book already, I just wanted to add that this was a "can't put it down" book for me also. I was in my early teens when Watergate was coming down. I had no idea just that Ford was such a principled man but also had the ability to get to the heart of a matter in few words and in most cases with no malice. As I was reading the last couple of chapters I felt like I'd really missed out by having neven known this man. He may not have been a Lincoln but he was certainly one Ford that never needed to be recalled. What a great read!!

5 comments about Ike: An American Hero.

1. Michael Korda's beefy biography of Dwight Eisenhower is a must read for anyone who thought of Ike as just the avuncular President of the quiet 1950's. Korda's portrait of Eisenhower paints Ike as an intelligent and thoughtful leader in both World War II as Supreme Allied Commander and in his many Post War roles. When Eisenhower took over the presidency in January 1953 the post war peace had all but unraveled with Korea raging, the French losing their grip in Vietnam, and the Middle East a boiling cauldron of activity. Ike's stalwart character appears to have been a great force in keeping this potential incendiary period in check.
   
   Korda paints Eisenhower as a simple but forthright and principled individual. I was particular impressed with the resolute character of Eisenhower and his strong sense of duty in whatever assignment or job he undertook during his career. As Korda says, "while Eisenhower was the last president born in the 19th century, he was a 20th century thinker." As supreme commander of European theatre during World War II and as President of the United States, Eisenhower never seemed to get raddled no matter how difficult or bleak the situation appeared. It is not hard to see how Eisenhower commanded such world respect during the War and the Post War period. One wonders what the situation would have been in Iraq if Eisenhower had been the chief executive today?



2. The first 1/3 of the book is spent on the first 45 years or so of Ike's life, which is remarkable for its dullness. He really did nothing of note or of interest until WW2. Then, most of the rest of the book is dedicated to war-years (which is already well-trodden ground). Relatively little space is dedicated to his two terms as President, which I find appalling. Four years at war get almost 500 pages but 8 years as leader of the most powerful country in the history of the world get maybe 50? A very imbalanced treatment, IMO, and very disappointing.
   
   On a lesser note: the habit of the author to drop (un-translated) French and German phrases is pretentious and annoying. The author also makes a few attempts to dabble in psycho-history, which I've never been able to take seriously. Aside from these minor points, the writing is o.k.
   
   I'm sure one wouldn't have to work very hard to find a better treatment of Eisenhower and his work.
   
   Not terrible but not recommended.



3. Once Korda reached 1945 in IKE, it feels like he filed all his research away and said, "Let's wrap this up!" Unfortunately, Ike still had 25 years left in him. Consequently, Korda's biography feels incomplete. Furthermore, for all the space Korda accords to Ike's WWII years, he pays scant attention to the Holocaust. What did Ike know about the Holocaust, about the Final Solution? What was his reaction to the liberation of the concentration camps (Korda mentions Ike's presence at just one, a sub-camp). In light of the preeminence of Holocaust studies in the past 15 years, Korda really could have shed new light with a discussion of Ike and the plight of the Jewish people. Similarly, the creation of Israel receives no mention in this book, even though Ike, as Supreme Commander of the AEF and, later, commander of NATO, would have seen, heard, and possibly opined on "The Palestine Question." In short, if well done, a 900-page offering from Korda would have been more edifying than a 700-page tome.



4. Excellent Presidential Biography that was both appropriately critical and complementary. This book is a must for anyone interested in both the military history as well as the Presidential biography.



5. I've always thought Ike was one of our two greatest generals, the other being Geo. Washington who kept our country together. If one can imagine the egos that Ike had to work with, i.e Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin, Patton, Montgomery, and even MacCarthur, it would seem that this would be an almost impossible task in itself. But then to be asked to construct and conduct what was perhaps the greatest military endeavor of all time, and to get all of these "egos" to work in harmony, would see to be beyond comprehension. This is probably not a biography in the true sense of the word as Korda treats some things a little superficially, but does cover the war years in great detail. I have no doubt that as history continues Eisenhower will be considered one of the greatest military genius of them all. He not only had to perform militarily, but politically also. He did that. I would certainly recommend this book to any student of history, particulary of World War II.

5 comments about Fever Pitch.

1. This is simply put, a great book. I have been a fan of football for a few years now and have to admit I am always interested to read or hear about people experiences. More importantly I was always interested in how people picked their team and the life of an English fan. This is a very well written version of how someone became a life long football fan. It will keep you laughing and show you exactly how important football and sports in general can be to people.
   
   1 Warning: Do not buy this book simply because you enjoy Nick Hornby. This is a book about a football fan, not a novel. That being said if you enjoy football, or sports, and a good witty read, this book is for you!



2. I pretty much hate all forms of football. The fact that I read a book about football (to the British, that is: the rest of the world calls it soccer) from cover to cover, smirking, chuckling and at times laughing out loud, attests, once again, to the talent of Nick Hornby as a wordsmith. This book is witty and clever, incredibly insightful about obsession and definitely worth a read!



3. A 2007 summer reading list mini review
   
   If you are so passionate, it's scary about sports you must read this book. Many reviewers have said here and elsewhere that a rudimentary understanding of British Football is imperative to enjoying this book. Quite simply, they are wrong. All I knew about soccer in Britain, prior to reading this, was from watching Bend it like Beckham. However,I had no trouble following the book, as obsession translates for itself.
   
   When Hornby tries to take partial credit for Arsenal's championship seasons simply because he attended their games I related. I still feel partially responsible for the White Sox winning the World Series in 2005. The previous 2 seasons the Sox had excellent records at home but were 0-8 when I attended. The sign that states welcome to the ballpark was modified adding except Dave Roller. But that did not stop me. I bought my first and only multi ticket plan and the White Sox went on their winning journey (musical pun intended).
   
   I encourage obsessive fans of any sport to put the lessons of Fever Pitch in their arsenal (again pun intended) of sports literature.



4. Great book. An excellent account of what it means to be a loyal fan or supporter.



5. The only thing keeping me from giving this book 5 stars is my own complete lack of interest in anything soccer-related. Take that personal bias out, and its a great read. The insight into the soccer culture in the UK is frankly frightening, but in a very funny way. Having lived through the Denver Bronco Super-Bowl failures of the 1980's as a kid, I empathized with Hornby as he details his own irrational emotions growing up as a fan.
   
   I think anyone, sports fan or not, will enjoy this book. Sports fans because they empathize, non-fans because it will help explain the mystery.