5 comments about The Lost Night: A Daughter's Search for the Truth of Her Father's Murder.

1. Rachel Howard tells a compelling story in "The Lost Night," a memoir that reads like an extended episode of crime documentary shows like "48 Hours Mystery." A pre-teen when her father was stabbed to death in what seemed like a botched break-in, the loss haunts Howard until she can find a way to make sense of it. Suspicion surrounds Howard's step-mother, whose brother is questioned by police, but it is eventually cold cased. As an adult, Howard investigates further, a decision which brings her back in contact with both her father's family and her dreaded step-mother (who has since married again and moved away.)
   
   The book effectively sets the scene in California's Central Valley, and Howard successfully plumbs the psychological effects of growing up without a murdered parent. She is candid about many of her struggles with men as a result of the loss, although she is slightly dreamy about her wedding and happy relationship with her husband. (This aspect of the memoir seemed overly one-sided and idealistic.) Her father's murder is never solved, but Howard does find a way to come to peace with it, including an acknowledgment of her own biases against her former step-mother, who makes a memorable reappearance in some of the book's best latter moments.
   
   What we end up learning about in "The Lost Night" is the effect of crime on those left behind, and the mysteries that remain when crimes aren't solved. Although the writing is no where near the quality of classics of the true crime genre, this is a worthy effort and worth a read.



2. Met the author at a book signing and was impresssed by her impeccable poise and story-telling ability. Then I went home and read the book. Wow. I had the same experience as the other readers. This is an excellent and poignant memoir.
   One feels the you-are-there quality of a little girl awakening in the middle of the night to see her father covered with blood on the floor. The people in her book are like characters in a Dickens novel, yet they are (were) all very real. Howard captures the cultural milieu of Merced California in the mid '80's. Her father loved Rod Stewart with a passion and the lyrics of his songs weave through the true story of a child trying to make sense of what is going on around her.
   The child matures into an adult and becomes a writer! What an awesome contribution to the memoir genre. I do hope that the killer is eventually caught.



3. This is a wonderful combination of memoir and true crime. I felt as though I realy got to know the author. Her willingness to examine the fragility of memory and adjust her conclusions accordingly made her more appealing. The change in her attitudes toward the people in her life caused me to re-examine my own feelings toward people in my life. This book is a definite addition for anyone's library.



4. Lost and Found - a past reclaimed
   
   I finished Rachel Howard's "the lost night" at 3 this morning. From the minute I cracked its spine, the pages turned themselves, inviting me to ignore every routine chore of mine: dirty dishes, daily exercise, even meals (though I did manage to go to work and feed the cat).
   
   Masterfully written, the book tells a riveting story of the murder of Rachel's father when she was only 10 years old. How she handled the loss of this beloved man, her protector and playpal, is a glimpse into how children cope with tragedy of this magnitude. The experience retrospectively defined Rachel, her relationship with her family and also with her stepmother Sherry, her father's third wife when he was murdered. Rachel, the product of divorce, was spending a few summer weeks at her father's home during this time. She was witness to his last waking minutes and remembered details that would replay themselves with increasing vividness as time went by.
   
   But memory is elusive...and selective. The author comes to realize that her memories were circumscribed by the limited frame-of-reference of a young life.
   
   What I found so compelling here is the child's perspective. I have read (and probably own!) just about every true-crime/courtroom/forensic book that exists, yet I never read such an account from a 10-year-old point-of-view. Rachel illustrates the sometimes graphic, sometimes muted terror-of-the-night children of murdered parents are heir to, their wispy and unexpressed--indeed unconscious--suspicion of significant-others, and their necessary dependencies on adults who, often not comprehending the nuances involved, believe that by trotting the kid to therapy, they absolve themselves of the pain of revisiting the circumstances themselves. In Rachel's case, her father's family remained largely silent with her about that night. They may have felt that openly speaking about the murder with someone so young would somehow legitimize it for her. In fact, their passivity had the opposite, and quite damaging, effect on a young mind hungry for assurance and validation.
   
   Palpable throughout Rachel's memoir is its raw honesty. The writing is often brutally introspective, devoid of the self-pity and lachrymose language which the author might easily --and justifiably-have indulged. She is seeking information and answers, and by the last page, I realize she has found those things, and some peace along the way.
   
   Therese Hercher



5. William Grimes has always been one of my favorite NY Times reviewers. Although he tends to be negative, when he waxes effusive, I take notice. When I saw this....
   ------
   "As a memoirist, she succeeds BRILLIANTLY. "The Lost Night" is ENTHRALLING, a skillfully narrated story that begins as a tale of detection but quickly becomes something more."
   --William Grimes, NEW YORK TIMES
   
   I figured I'd take a chance. Well, it's been sitting on my nightstand for 6-months now and damn if it's not enthralling. Although I was hoping for a bit of a who-done-it, I couldn't put it down. The descriptions of the messed-up Central Valley(to put it delicately)were terrific. With some sex, drugs, and even some 80s Rod Stewart in the mix, for good measure, it was a joy to read.

5 comments about Honorable Warrior: General Harold K. Johnson and the Ethics of Command (Modern War Studies).

1. Well-researched and written. A Bataan death march survivor and prisoner of the Japanese for several years, Johnson rose to the top of his profession, Chief of Staff of the Army. Truly a great man but largely unknown. An exciting story.



2. Harold K. Johnson was a soldier's soldier who had the misfortune to have his career bookended by a pair of tragedies. As a young officer at the beginning of World War II, he was captured by the Japanese on Bataan and his sense of duty forced him to abandon thoughts of escape in order to look after his men. Then, as Chief of Staff of the Army, he was forced to watch the civilian leadership ignore his advice and make a hash of a winnable war. Again, his sense of duty to his men forced him to swallow his anger and abandon plans of resigning and going public with his criticisms.
   
   Lest one think that something other than duty led him to these painful decisions, the core of his career reveals a brilliant, courageous soldier for whom duty was his watchword. Sorley writes with objectivity and sensitivity about Johnson's career and this book becomes a virtual primer on duty. Selflessness marked all of Johnson's actions and while one would have preferred seeing a happier conclusion to the career of this fine man, Honorable Warrior shows you why the best people in America are sometimes forced to live with the consequences of someone else's muddled decisions.
   
   Sorley's book succeeds as top notch military history, a thoughtful biography of a good man and a philosophical meditation on the nature of duty.



3. Sorley had become the preeminent biographer of military leaders. His first book, Thunderbolt, was a joy to read. Honorable Warrior is the story of man who fought, the Japanese, survived the Battan Death march and many years of unspeakable horror in Japanese prison camps. He also fought with great bravery in Korea. However, I t was his time as Chief of Staff when General Johnson faced his most difficult professional agonies. Anyone interested in leadership, the military or American history should read this book.



4. I'm four-fifths done with "Honorable Warrior", and about the same amount done with "A Bright Shining Lie: John Paul Vann and America in Vietnam" by Neil Sheehan, and I'm terribly afraid, in fact, I'm pretty sure (I looked at the ending) that Mr. Sorley will duck the question that his subject could not duck..quite. That question was whether the military effort was going to work. General Johnson was averse to Phoenix-style assassination programs and to unrestrained bombardment. He thought local policing and interdiction of infiltration would answer things. This assumes (on his part) that the South Vietnamese regime would use this breathing space to flourish in democracy, rectitude, and mercy. Why did he assume this? His cherished analytical principle, Mr. Sorley informs us, was "challenge the assertion". For instance, the General tore to shreds, anaylytically, one of McNamara's "Systems Anaylysis" monster-reports on Vietnam by pointing out that it had been cobbled together out of twenty-eight other analyses, each of which had different assumptions. As my history professor would say, "scissors and paste" or "daisy-chaining" does not good history make. My question is whether the General was rigorous enough in evaluating his own thought, his own assertions. The question is directed to Mr. Sorley, who says in his conclusion that the war was actually against mere "surrogates" of China and the Soviet Union. By that logic, we would have been morally authorized to kill every Vietnamese, since they were only inert instruments of the source of the belligerency. Trying to look through Mr. Sorley's somewhat blood-misted eyes, I take seriously his suggestion that the General was often tempted to quit and that he had paralyzing doubts about the war, which he justified to himself as bringing freedom to the people of Vietnam. Did the General end up believing, in the words of the U.S. officer so often quoted, that in order to save the nation of Vietnam it was necessary to destroy it? No, I hear his fans shouting, he was too moral! But was he moral enough to realize that it was immoral to police and interdict a viable political regime (sponsored by Ho) to death in the hope that another regime would spring up from the morally toxic swamps of Saigon? (This concept of viability of regime is the standard upheld by so-called international law in determining which of competing regimes deserves recognition). Could he make that leap of faith in good conscience? Or did he in fact drape his moral doubt in words like "anti-communism" and "security", and leave it to someone else to decide if the whole thing was going to work? My suggestion for a moral lesson is that if you're called on to do something by someone who is farther from the action than you are to the extent that you're confident that you know more about the moral questions raised than your "superior" does, so much so that your sense of obligation to this superior evaporates, you cannot dress up your feeling of emptiness with some slogans, much less with the claim that you're only following orders, but must do something to rectify the malfeasance of your own superiors. In the words of Matthew Ridgeway, words that the Army put on a leadership poster ten years ago, "If you are confident that your orders are mistaken, you are obliged to attempt to fix things." Not his exact words. I don't think he just said to bring it to the attention of your superiors. I suppose that leaves disobedience, resignation, and forceful advocacy. It is the lack of forceful advocacy by the General, and lack of concern by Mr. Sorley over the General's lack of forceful advocacy, that makes the life of the General, as Mr. Sorley tells it, only worth four stars out of five. I mean, you can't just blame everything on General Westmoreland, especially when he worked for General Johnson, traditions of lattitude for field commanders notwithstanding. Alright, how do I know the General wasn't forceful enough since I haven't finished the book? He could have ordered Westmoreland to fix things: whatever, invade Laos, install U.S. commanders in all ARVN units, take over the administration of the South Vietnamese civil population, which is the same as taking over the Saigon regime, whatever it would have taken in his mind to win ("the freedom of the South Vietnamese people", remember) and then suffered the consequences. The President could have fired him. The fact that the President didn't fire him is proof to me that he didn't advocate forcefully enough. That is crude of me. Romantic. Duel at Diablo. End of story. Soul intact. It is so easy in a bureaucracy to adopt the attitude of "garbage in, garbage out", but they pay you and respect you for doing hard things. In the words of the New Testament parable, we are worthless servants when we only do what we are told. If the General had no doubt that his conduct of the war -- he was plumb in the middle of the road of the chain of command, it was on his watch -- was ethical, we cannot second-guess God's judgment of him. To quote the previous reviewer, however, it seems that he thought that his job was to follow orders. That is not ethical. That is, in the final analysis, stupid. We don't creates lines of authority to multiply our stupidity, but to diminish it. If, when you give somebody an order, there is no implicit "or am I being stupid" which they feel free to confirm or deny, you are not getting the best out of that subordinate and the people are not getting its best out of you. This applies the more so, the higher up you go. Hey?



5. I had the honor to know General Harold K. Johnson while he was a Commanding General, and then to serve two years as his personal aide while he was Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army. Sorley has done a magnificient job of research and reporting on the life of the most dedicated American military leader in recent history. General Johnson was a unique man, humbled by his roots, molded by his experience as a POW, and a man whose personal moral standards never waivered. I think the author has portrayed General Johnson as the man I knew. My only difference with the portrayal is the implication of "resignation in protest" on a number of occasions. General Johnson held the view that his function was to advise the President, and that the President had no obligation to accept that advice. I would accept the "resignation" theory only if it portrayed General Johnson as considering resignation because he felt his advice was inadequate or that his articulation ! of that advice was inadequate. The idea of resignation would have been because he felt someone else could perhaps do it better. He was such a private man that I also doubt he would have shared that thought with others, particularly junior to him. But, a really excellent biography and Sorley has done himself proud.

5 comments about Agent of Destiny: The Life and Times of General Winfield Scott.

1. Agent of Destiny: The Life and Times of General Winfield Scott by John S. D. Eisenhower is, while a bit misnamed, an excellent introduction to both the history and culture of the 19th century army and General Winfield Scott.
   
   Most Americans remember Winfield Scott as the General who made an amphibious landing on the east coast of Mexico and marched to Mexico City. Since that is about the sum of what is taught in 11th Grade American History class, that is where most reasonably well read American's knowledge of Winfield Scott stops. Reading this book is a good first step in rediscovering the man who defined the culture and professional competency of the 19th Century American Army.
   
   While this book has some glaring weaknesses, it does introduce the casual reader to some interesting ideas and arguments.
   
   First, the near complete destruction of the U S Army under Gen "Mad" Anthony Wayne by Shawnee Indians in the early 1790's. While I knew that the nomative War Chief of the Shawnees - believe his name was Simon Gurdy, but my memory may be off - was a white man who held a reserve commission in the British Army, I did not realize that this was one of the incidents that led to the War of 1812. The idea that as recent as the 1790's some of the Indian tribes had enough firepower and resources to crush the bulk of the U S Army in a single battle both shows the relative strength of those particular Indian tribes and the grotesque incompetence of most American military leadership of the time.
   
   Second, America is a country that is at its best when it is a country of second chances that believes in forgiveness as much as accountability. Winfield Scott started off his military career by being courts martialed for calling a senior general a traitor. Even though this was probably a true statement, this was not an auspicious beginning. Likewise, from the book it appears as if Winfield Scott actually led his brigade into a slaughter at the battle of Lundy Lane. Yet, he retained his rank as a Brigadier General. That combined with his youth almost ensured that at some point in the future he would become the commanding general of the
   U S Army. That somewhat fortuitous set of facts turned out to be pretty beneficial for the United States in not only Winfield Scott's peacetime efforts, but also in his skillful handling of the Mexican American War. Clearly, the Winfield Scott who led his brigade to slaughter in 1812 was not the one who skillfully defeated an Army in a foreign land when outnumbered three to one.
   
   Third, there are a series of important ideas and debates that have shaped and, to a certain extant, continue to shape the U S Army. All of these debates are touched upon - although Eisenhower does not elaborate - in this book. What sort of military does America need when all of its peer competitors are so distant in terms of space and time? What is the role of conventional forces and special forces, this question first comes to light in the various Indian campaigns in Florida and Georgia. What is the proper role of "regular" forces versus "reserve" or "volunteer" forces? Perhaps the last is an important question today in Iraq. Indeed, Eisenhower's discussions of "red legged" infantry in Florida made me think about modern day Iraq where Armor and Artillery soldiers are serving in counter-insurgency missions.
   
   Fourth, Winfield Scott was a much better peacemaker than war maker. I lost count of the number of times that Winfield Scott negotiated away potential conflict between the United Kingdom and the U S. The last was after he had retired when RADM Wilkes - famous from the U S Exploring Expedition - had initiated an international incident by seizing two British diplomats from a Confederate ship. Moreover, Winfield Scott's role in diffusing the "Nullification Crises", perhaps, shaped the nature of American history forever. If South Carolina had left the Union in the 1820s, it is possible that the Civil War might have happened three decades earlier. It is likely that without those thirty years of industrial development and the various crises in 1840s Europe to feed Northern population growth, the South just might have won that hypothetical Civil War.
   
   None of these topics are really expanded upon. However, this is a good book for a basic introduction to Winfield Scott and 19th Century U S Army. I highly recommend it as a primer to begin to learn more.



2. I must say that Eisenhower's biography of "Old Fuss and Feathers" was truely incredible. I absolutely loved this biography so much that I read it in about 2 days. Eisenhower researched Scott very well and did a great job portraying this great American Hero. At the end of the book you really feel like you know Winfield Scott personally and you feel sorry for the fact that old age finally overtook him when his country needed him most.
   
   Eisenhower particularly did a good job portraying Scott's relationship with his contemporaries and the politicians. He spends an entire chapter on the Scott-Andrew Jackson feud and describes it very well, quoting the exact letters sent back and forth between the two, including Jackson challenging Scott to a duel. Eisenhower deserves special congratualations for doing the Scott-Polk relationship so well. You really feel bad for Scott with how Polk and the administration treated him before, after, and especially during the Mexican War.
   
   Scott really was an American Hero. He can easily be considered the Father of the American Army. He led the United States military for half a century(even if not officially). He achieved one of the greatest military triumphs in World History by taking Mexico City. He gave up a supply line and was outnumbered 3:1 by Santa Anna. You can't help but admire Scott and particularly dislike Polk after reading about Scott in the Mexican War.
   
   When you think of Scott you think of primarily warrior but Eisenhower does a great job showing that Scott was also a peace maker. He travelled across the country to mediate potential crises all the time. He helped prevent war with Britain and Canada more than once and did his best to help the Indians even though the government could care less about them.
   
   Scott is a true American Hero and Eisenhower makes this perfectly clear with his outstanding biography of this great American.



3. This is an excellent introduction to one of the United State's greatest military leaders. It is not an exhaustive account but it never claims to be one. I think this book is perfect for the military history buff who wants to find out who Scott was and what his accomplishments were. The book is less than 500 pages long so Eisenhower's treatment of Scott's over 50 years of Military service is concise. However, it highlights many (if not all) of Scott's successes and failures during his tenure. The book has whetted my appetite to find out more about this illustrous man. Read Eisenhower's book on the Mexican War, "So far from God" for a more in-depth examination of General Scott's masterful campaign to capture Mexico City and force the Mexican government to capitulate to the U.S.



4. "Old Fuss and Feathers", Winfield Scott, is one of the most important soldiers in American history. He was breveted a Brigadier General during the War of 1812, his shadow passes across all of the American Army's actions during the first half of the 19th Century, and before retiring he came up with "The Anaconda Plan" as a strategy to win the Civil War.

   But there is no decent biography of this great historic figure. And AGENT OF DESTINY falls far short of the mark.

   Sure, it is meticulously researched. In fact, it is more researched than written. Eisenhower wrote SO FAR FROM GOD about the Mexican War; AGENT OF DESTINY seems to be an expansion of that research project.

   The presentation is very episodic. They read like they were all written separately, and no real cohesive thread runs through the book.

   There is just no real sense of proportion. A Scott court martial is covered in little more than a page, with the juicy details buried in footnotes, and then it goes on forever with the intriguing and fueding for positions.

   And a critism that applies to much modern military history -- there are way too few maps.




5. This man's life is very much worth knowing about. Serving 14 Presidents, 13 as a general officer, he is the person who executed the military policies and directions of his civilian superiors.

   He became a military officer almost by accident. He did this at a time when the United States was a mere concept, a thought process whose liberties and freedoms were undeveloped, untested and subject to interpretation by men who were not completely sold on the United States as a unified country.

   His time coincided with the concept more popularly known as Manifest Destiny and he lived to see the United States evolve from an aggregation of discordant, fractious, sovereign States to a Nation that filled a continent. He was a man that avoided more wars than he fought and when he fought them you had best get out of the way.

   The military was his life, the tool through which he made his contribution to America. Because he made his contributions in our country's formative stages, he has largely been forgotten. But he once strode across the evolution of the American stage with very big boots, a set of shoes which very few military men have since been able to fill.

   John Eisenhower's book is a long overdue thank you.

No comments about Billy Mitchell: Evangelist of Airpower (Shapers of America).

No comments about A Soldiers Vignettes of WWII.

No comments about Lord Geoffrey's Fancy (Phoenix Press).

5 comments about The Man Who Warned America: The Life and Death of John O'Neill, the FBI's Embattled Counterterror Warrior.

1. The book is not news to anyone who reads any New York newspapers. It is a cut and paste job from ON's drinking buddy. Better reporting done by author Peter Lance. Of course, nothing written by me detracts from the dedication and true grit of John O'Neil.



2. John O'Neill was a problem. A bull in the china shop. He was a womanizer and he was an exceptionally poor fit at the FBI, but if we had listened to him 3000 people, including him, would not have died at the World Trade Center, the pentagon and on three airline carriers. There seems to be less and less room in America for the mavericks. This book is no white wash. It paints the man in full warts and all. But at the end of it we realize that it was this wildman who was right and all the politicians, hypocrites, sanctamonious twits and stuffed shirt beaureaucrats who drove him from the FBI,or didn't pay attention to him were wrong. The execrable Barbara Bodine who single handedly ruined his mission to Yemen comes in for special criticism. She probably still doesn't think she did anything wrong. We are becoming a silly nation. We've become obsessed with beauratic rules, political correctness on the left, phony piety on the right, and we can't get anything done anymore. Don't read this book merely as a tragedy but look it as a wake up call



3. John O'Neill grew up in Atlantic City, NJ watching the FBI on TV on Sunday nights. All he ever wanted to do was be an FBI agent and serve his country. The son of working class folks who ran a taxi cab business he dedicated himself to be the finest and fulfilled his childhood dreams. Jonh went to my high-school and lived 5 minutes from where I grew up, I never knew him but after reading this fine Murray Weiss biography I feel I know him as a brother. This book will infuriate you as John O'Neill tries to warn everyone in the government of an impending doom with Bin Laden, who he studied and profiled, much to his chagrin no one listened. How ironic that after so much frustration with the FBI bureacracy and a Clinton Administration consumed by the presidents personal travails that John O'Neill resigns to take over security operations at the World Trade Center one week before 9/11. He perished in the collapse of the towers after he was safely out. He ran back in to try to save people. This book will move you, John O'Neill's story will stay with you. Did he have his own style and personal troubles, sure, but his life is what you will remember, his dedication to his job and the fact that maybe if a few more higher ups had listened to him this tragedy could have been averted. With men like this, you'll believe our country is in good hands as far as the war with terrorism is concerned. It's upper management we should be worried about.



4. John O'Neill was the most dedicated member of the FBI who committed his life to fighting crime and, ultimately, terrorism. His efforts were discouraged by bureaucracy, ignorance, and the Clinton administration. Read firsthand in this book how he was so close to saving much anguish, sorrow and death in the United States but was stopped in his tracks by others too inept to acknowledge the vision he had for stopping the unfortunate acts of terrorism in New York and Yemen. The cruelest irony is that he died in the collapse of the World Trade Center towers in charge of security after he retired from the FBI due to frustration.



5. This is an interesting book on an unusual subject. People like John O'Neill are not usually the subjects of biographies. He wasn't anywhere near prominent enough, and that usually means that someone like O'Neill winds up being a footnote in a book about someone else. Instead, O'Neill was the FBI agent in charge of International security in New York City, and spent much of the 90s as the guy in the FBI who was the most interested in and focused on capturing Osama bin Laden. Ironically, he retired in mid-2001, and took a job as head of security at the World Trade Center. He went back into the South Tower on 9/11 and was killed when it collapsed.
   
   O'Neill, according to the author, was a complex, driven man, a visionary who was one of the first US officials to decide that Osama bin Ladin was worth watching and perhaps capturing. While his FBI career was, in terms of his job performance, impeccable, he had two major weaknesses. First, he was occasionally forgetful, and violated various FBI rules and protocols. In the mid-90s, when Louis Freeh was running the FBI, any violations were punishable, and almost certainly would have a detrimental affect on a person's career. O'Neill was once caught letting a girlfriend onto an FBI secure facility, and giving her a ride in his car. On another occasion, he lost a briefcase full of classified material that shouldn't have been out of the office. Both of these incidents impacted his career and chances for promotion. Second, he had a penchant for chasing multiple women at the same time, concealing each liason from all of his other girlfriends. When he died, each of the women was surprised to find out that there were other women in his life.
   
   Much of the book is devoted to O'Neill's pursuit of bin Ladin, especially the investigation of the bombings at the African Embassies in 1998 and the Cole bombing in 2000. While O'Neill wasn't involved directly in the Embassy bombing investigations, he was in charge of the Cole bombing investigation. However, for whatever reason he ran afoul of the local US ambassador, a woman named Barbara Bodine, who started out asserting her control of the investigation and insisting that the Yemenis were offended by O'Neill, and that only she could smoothe things over. This was before O'Neill had met any of the Yemenis yet, but she insisted it was the case. By the time the investigation concluded, Bodine was so sure that withdrawing the FBI investigators was provocative that she ordered Marine guards to keep the FBI agents in the embassy, and had to be told by her superiors at the State Department to let the agents go. After she'd been transferred back to the States and 9/11 happened, the Yemenis became more helpful, and eventually began cooperating extensively with the US. Ambassador Bodine stuck to her guns, however, and even badmouthed O'Neill in an interview after his death.
   
   You have to wonder about this part of the book. Author Weiss was a friend of O'Neill's, and he clearly sides with him against Bodine. It's difficult to see how she could justify what she did (even if O'Neill was despicable, letting her opinion of him subvert this sort of FBI investigation is inexcusable). I expect that somehow she saw through his private life in some fashion. Weiss says that she had been introduced to O'Neill in New York before she became ambassador to Yemen. Perhaps she saw him at a restaurant with a woman other than the one who was escorting him the night they were introduced to each other.
   
   Regardless, this is an interesting book, even if the author, a journalist, occasionally makes a mistake around the periphery of his story. The one I noticed was the author saying that USS The Sullivans was named for some brothers killed on a "carrier" during World War II. The Sullivan brothers were killed on USS Juneau, an Atlanta-class Light Cruiser. Other reviewers have noted mistakes on the edges of the story, but they don't (in my mind, anyway) detract from the main message of his story.

5 comments about Be My Baby: How I Survived Mascara, Miniskirts, and Madness, or My Life as a Fabulous Ronette.

1. Ronnie Spector is more interesting when she was young and a Ronnette as opposed to when she got older. The first half of the book was fascinating, especially from the music history point of view. Once she seperated from Phil Spector, it was not that interesting.
   
   Since the book was updated, I would have liked to hear a lot more about the homicide at Phil Spector's hosue as well as how Joey Ramone's relationship with her.
   
   If you are a fan of Ronnie SPector than this is an enjoyable read.



2. I've been in love with this woman and her music ever since I saw The Ronettes live at The Brooklyn Fox Theatre in 1964. I was only 15 years old at the time. If you love Ronnie Spector as much as I do, then do yourself a favor and buy this book. It isn't only about music. It is about courage, and the ability to overcome barriers. Very inspirational. Trust me, you will not be disappointed.



3. Like so many other baby boomers I grew up listening to the likes of many girl groups, doo wop, early British and American rock as well as buble gum pop of both East and West coast origin. In high school I fell in love with the sound of one of these girl groups. The voice, the smooth moves and grooves of the greatest of these groups kept me longing for more. I couldn't buy enouph of anything relating to The Ronnets. When I stumbled on this book by accident, some 7 years ago, I thought hmmm, no accident, I am destined to read and know more about my musical Lady heroine.
   In this read, I learned more about Ronnie than I ever dreamed I might. I took a trip back in time and found it difficult to put this book down. I felt her pains and gains, and I grew to know more about her than I probably wanted to, after all I had been in love with the likes of this Fabulous Ronnet for so long, that it was often cause for discomfort. I learned so much about other musicians and singers from that era as well, to think that Ronnie hung out with the likes of some of them.
   This is a must read for someone who thought they knew a thing or two of a time gone by and its musical influence and the people who helped make it what it was. If ever Rock-101 were taught in any format, this book need-be included.



4. This book is even more timely to read now that Ronnie's ex-hubby Phil Spector was arrested the other day for the murder of a woman in his house. It gives great insight not only into Ronnie's life story and rise to stardom but also into Phil's personality and temperament. While there is absolutely no doubt of Phil's musical genius, the man was(and possibly still is)mentally unstable(he claims to be bipolar and does not like to take his meds). I first bought and read this book when it first came out years ago but it is still a great read, one of the very best rock-bios around. It is also a great companion piece to Darlene Love's autobiography. If you are a fan of Phil Spector's Wall of Sound, both books are essential reading. Very highly recommended.



5. For Ronnie Spector fans everywhere, this book has it all. Her early days in New York City, the beginning of the Ronettes, their spectacular number 1 hit BE MY BABY, her nightmare of booze and obsession while married to that creep Phil Spector, and her triumphant return to her first love of music and singing. If you want a fascinating look at the girl groups in Rock and Roll history, then you want to read this book. She writes in a down-to-earth way that makes you feel like a good friend is telling you a heart-wrenching story of pain and loss, of fear and courage. Good going, Ronnie! We love you.

1 comments about Grant and Lee: Victorious American and Vanquished Virginian.

1. I'd like to congratulate Mr. Bonekemper for writing 'the book that had to be written.' Grant's reputation has only very slowly recovered from the trashing it took during the decades following the Civil War. Mr. Bonekemper presents us here with the kind of analysis and statistical material that points to a very different picture than we are used to having of these two Generals. Expanding on what he has already mentioned in his other books on these two Generals, 'How Robert E. Lee Lost the Civil War' and 'A Victor Not a Butcher', Bonekemper presents us with a compelling and very readable comparison account of the two generals. The scholarship is bright and worth noting, the writing is excellent. I haven't been this pleased since my reading of Bruce Catton.

5 comments about George C. Marshall: The Rubrics of Leadership.

1. A great book for business leaders who want to apply the successful aspects of military leadership.



2. As a now retired business and appointed governmental execitive (and a former junior officer in the U. S. Army)I believe the Rubrics of Leadership to be one of the finest, best books on the subject of leadership of the many I have read over my career. The historical perspective in which the book reflects the life of General Marshall guides the reader through his learning evolution as moves into leadership positions with greater and greater responsibilities in the military, as Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense. The rubrics at the end of each chapter provide the reader with well writen leadership "rubrics" refective of the main points in the historical naritive. A good read and lessons that will enhance anyones leadership skills.
   
   I have donated copies to local college ROTC PMS and to my two sons who are senior leaders in their business affiliations.



3. Well written but tends to jump around Marshall's career to illustrate points rather than build chronologically.



4. Originally I picked this book up to assign to my ROTC students in my military history courses. However, the writing is so choppy and there are almost no transitions from one topic to the next that if one of my students handed in work like this I would make them an appointment at the writing lab. Anecdotes are left hanging with no conclusion and at times they are forced into the chapters with no apparent connections. This is not entirely the author's fault, his reviewers and editors either failed to point out these shortcomings or over looked them. Either way it makes this book impossible to read and take serious. To be fair I did only read half the book because I just could not force myself to go on.



5. Written by retired U.S. Army Reserve LTC and leadership teacher Stewart W. Husted, George C. Marshall: Rubrics of Leadership is not an ordinary biography of World War II legend George C. Marshall; the focus here is specifically upon the factor within him that made him a unique, exceptional, and supremely competent leader. Featuring a foreword by General J.H. Binford Peay, III and a prologue by General Colin Powell, George C. Marshall: Rubrics of Leadership examines Marshall's talent for managing and planning the impossible, how he built a winning team and maintained morale, transformed crisis into success, engaged in conflict resolution and negotiation, devoted his life to selfless service, and much more. An eye-opening portrait of Marshall's strengths and positive qualities, and especially his personal exemplification of the best in human leadership.