5 comments about At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA.

1. George Tenet's autobiographical "At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA" is an interesting and readable look at George Tenet's years as the Director of Central Intelligence - key years that included the 9/11 attacks the beginning of the war in Iraq. This is an extremely interesting book that gives Tenet's side of many of the contentious debates that have swirled over the past few years regarding the CIA.
   
   Tenet seems to have written this book in response to the criticism leveled against the CIA and him personally. He gives a detailed play-by-play of the Valeria Plame/Joe Wilson story (one of those stories that shocked the "Inside the Beltway" crowd but seems to have been of little interest to the rest of America) and the attendant debate over the inclusion of yellowcake in the President's State of the Union Address; he steadfastly denies the "slam-dunk" story as portrayed by Bob Woodward; and he is adamant that the CIA's National Intelligence Estimate of the Iraqi WMD was sound and not influenced by any political pressure, just based on flawed and unverifiable data (and the lack of WMDs was hidden by a madman who wanted everyone to believe that he had them). However, Tenet's entire perspective is blemished by his early telling of a meeting with Richard Perle on September 12, 2001, when Richard Perle told him, "Iraq has to pay a price." This account, in the introductory pages of the book and soon partly-debunked by verified reports that Perle was stranded in France after 9/11 (he may have told Tenet that, but it wasn't the day after 9/11 as Tenet claims), made me believe that some of Tenet's more sensational criticisms were made to sell books, grind some axes, or both.
   
   Still, Tenet writes his story in an easy-to-read, entertaining, and matter-of-fact manner. It's fascinating to read about the daily lives of his government officials - about their security details, the meetings, the frantic pace, the nonstop work, the amusing anecdotes, and the personal relationships they build with those around them.
   
   I'll leave out any discussion of Tenet's performance during his tenure as DCI because Tenet rarely focuses on the big picture of his time at DCI. He does freely discuss and criticize others around him: he is harshly critical of Cheney and his staff; he blames Douglas Feith for many of the Iraq-al Qaeda problems; he criticizes the Administration's faith and reliance on Ahmed Chalabi; he says that the National Security Council failed to take any steps to strategically counter the rising insurgency in Iraq; and he writes about some tension with Condoleezza Rice. Although he left his job as DCI seemingly at war with the Administration, Tenet never criticizes President Bush in his book, and when he talked about or criticized "the White House," I got the impression he was criticizing Cheney.
   
   This is a very interesting inside account of our government during the last 10 years. However, it gives one man's view - one man who was truly at the center of the storm - and his perspectives should be put in the context of the bigger events swirling around him. Although I found this book interesting, its personal biases (natural in any autobiographical account) and perspective prevent it from being a definitive account: instead, it would be of most interest to intelligence wonks and Inside-the-Beltway readers.



2. Although this book is voluminuos it is very insightful and a must read for contemporary critics and pundits of the recent politics. To read the behind the scenes, day to day banter and politics from the CIA directors point of view is absolutely fascinating and compelling. If you heva ever seen George on any of his interviews he is magnetic and charismatic at the core. A very bright man that has made his mark on history and has shared his stories for all to see and hear. Cathartic or not one of the best reads in the past few years for me. I also have passed this around to a few friends and each peson has cherised the read.



3. So much is made of Tenet, the "Slam Dunk", and his reluctancy to execute operation plans against UBL.
   Tenet takes you into the inner circle and gives you his version of Washington politics on several topics. From the Israel-Palestinian Conflict, the War in Afghanistan and Iraq, and his battle against Al Qaeda.
   For anyone interested in a real perspective, you will enjoy this book tremendously, for it is not simply a defense, it is his story. He does not attack Pres. Bush, he compliments him several times over. He does however outline the Gross Incompetence in the War in Iraq by the DOD.
   
   If you are into Poli Sci, this is a MUST.



4. Good. Provides (unclassified) insight into the interworkings of two presidents in the areas of Foreign Policy, National Security, and Intelligence. Nice to see that a DCI can work with two adminstrations and political parties; most DCIs do not last three years due to personalities or politics. It is one of the most thankless jobs in the world: everybody hates you, they are suspicious of you, and expect you can do everything all the time. I was amazed he was involved in foreign relation negotiation: a DCI is not to be involved in politics. I see some points of contention about his track record but he was one of the better ones.



5. I started reading this book with great respect for George Tenet. I finished it somewhat disappointed with him. My overall interpretation of what he has written is that many of the "mistakes" that were made were due to his detachment from many of the details of important intelligence information handled by the CIA. Many times he infers and outright states that "such and so was handling this and I should have paid more attention to it". I don't think anything George Tenet did or didn't do was done with malice, rather he was just not competent in the position he was in. It is not uncommon for a "star" performer at lower levels to rise to their level of incompetance. This is true in business and government. I have no doubt he was doing his best, but was simply the wrong man for the job at that time. However, hindsight is always 20/20.

5 comments about In an Uncertain World: Tough Choices from Wall Street to Washington.

1. This book is by former President Clinton's Secretary of the Treasury, Robert Rubin. Robert Rubin, was previous to his role at Treasury, co-chairman of Goldman Sachs, a position he rose to through the ranks over about twenty years. His specialty was risk arbitrage, involving multimillion decision making on placing bets or investments on whether or not a merger or acquisition would ultimately go through (or close) or not.
   
   No matter what you think of President Clinton or his administration. Robert Rubin was a key decision maker in the economic sphere. He participated and directed policmaking in the Asian financial crisis and financial crisis in Latin America, etc.
   
   The book is about his views on decisionmaking and the process of policymaking and is excellent. He discusses his view about "optionality" and the complexity of decisionmaking under uncertainty.
   
   The book is excellent and I highly recommend it if you are interested in decisionmaking, policmaking, economic policy, Wall Street, and leadership.



2. The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New WorldOn Money and Markets: A Wall Street Memoir
   
   Robert Rubin's book, "In an Uncertain World," is excellent reading for individuals managing their own pensions and other financial assets. This book, Alan Greenspan's book, "The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World," and Henry Kaufman's book, "On Money and Markets," certainly rank among the best in the last few years regarding insight into how the global economies work and interact. This book also addresses insight into properly assessing global risk in general and assessing how to consider risk in marking to market for various fixed income securities.
   
   Rubin's experience and insight in finance at Goldman Sachs and as U. S. Secretary of the Treasury is difficult to match by most financial experts.
   
   All persons managing money would find their time well spent reading, marking, and frequently referring to this excellent and thought provoking book.



3. An excellent account of the behind the scenes finance world at the Clinton White house but the author who worked there. he reveals all the comings and goings of 'maing things work' from a fiduciary standpoint. Good book



4. Robert Rubin traces his climb up the ladder in Wall Street and Washington DC and explains his role in significant national crises. He describes how he makes tough decisions after pondering the probabilities in the face of bewildering uncertainties. On page 48 he remebers how his grandfather was wiped out by the Florida land bust in the 1920s. A memory like that you would think would be barrier against complacency creeping in. But maybe not, unless there is another expalanation for why Citigroup put so much money into subprimes, while he was there in a position of power, and thus make it possible for the government of Abu Dhabai to come to the rescue and gain influence in such an important American Bank (what about national security?). As a public service Robert Rubin should generated a second edition of this book to bring to light the Tough Choices involved in betting those massive amounts on subprimes.
   
   The author reveals that he leans in the direction of anti-anti-big-government (see page 160). He places more faith in government control than the power of the "invisible hand". Unlike Alan Greenspan's book "The Age of Turbulence" this book does not contain a satisfying broad vision of our capitalistic economic system.



5. Rubin is a very smart guy and a great thinker. This book describes his years at Goldman Sachs and the bulk of it is about his time with the Clinton Administration. He gives the reader a nice window into what happens in the White House and more specifically the Treasury. He is critical of himself and humble. Autobiographies can be self-promoting, but Rubin is fair.
   
   The middle of the book gets a bit tedious and repetitive. He describes various crises in different countries which I am sure were very important at the time but his point could have gotten across to the reader by just describing a subset of these crises. Nevertheless this is a very important book for anyone who wants to understand the workings of the Treasury better. It is interesting that Paul O'Neill, Rubin's successor, critized Rubin and the Clinton administration for being the "Chief of the Fire Department" (referring to how they bailed countries' currencies as opposed to letting the free market take care of things with little intervention). Today with crises in the housing sector and mortgages, we are seeing similar meddling by the government. It is hard to watch thousands of homeowners lose thier homes if the government can assist them somehow. Rubin predicted this behavior.

5 comments about Journals: 1952-2000.

1. Unless one is a scholar, those under 60 will not find this book of great interest. For someone my age (71) who's also a political junky with still-vivid memories of the 1960s forward, this book is an artistic and intellectual treasure. The editing--and there was obvious a lot of editing--results in jewels on virtually every page. Schlesinger undresses everyone of consequence he ever worked with, no holds barred, including the Kennedy family.
   
   In 1969 (maybe 1970) Lloyd Norman, dean of the Pentagon press corps, addressed a class I attended at Fort Benning, GA. He claimed before the so-called Cuban missile crisis, he was given a briefing about how the crisis at sea would be orchestrated, so there was never a real chance of armed confrontation. I could never get verification of this, and none of the popular or historical accounts mention it. Yet, on page 176 Schlesinger mentions an October 1962 letter from Khrushchev to Bertrand Russell about "his instructions to Soviet ships to avoid confrontation..." When Schlesinger heard about the incident from Averell Harriman, he sent a memo to the President describing the Khruschev letter. Kennedy, according to the book, "called Harriman the next day and asked him questions about it." Is this validation of Norman's account? Maybe.



2. Anyone who has read Schlesinger's books on Andrew Jackson, the New Deal, or John and Robert Kennedy knows how partisan he was. He viewed American history as a perennial struggle between noble, idealistic, intelligent liberals and selfish, materialistic, moronic conservatives. This is not my interpretation of his views. It was explicit in his meta-historical cyclical conception of American history, which he adopted from his father. Indeed, his partisanship was so obvious that it was harmless. These journals are no exception. Those people who opposed his heroes were not only wrong, they were morally and intellectually corrupt; and even, in the case of Lyndon Johnson, borderline insane. The only exception I could find was Henry Kissinger, whom Schlesinger usually described with respect. The same is true of events. The American involvement in Vietnam enters his journals only in 1966, with regard to Robert Kennedy's opposition to it. There is no way of knowing from these journals that John Kennedy was responsible for it.
   Nevertheless, these journals provide many interesting and important insights into the events and people that shaped American political history in the last half of the twentieth century.
   Moreover, among their most valuable passages are those in which Schlesinger's liberal bias itself is illuminating. For example, on page 363, he attributed George McGovern's catastrophic loss to Richard Nixon in the 1972 election mainly to racism, which he says was "the all-pervading issue of the election." According to Schlesinger, it was "the belief that Nixon can be relied upon to keep the blacks down" that caused large numbers of traditionally Democratic voters to vote for him. Schlesinger acknowledged that Nixon's supporters did not say that that they were racists. Schlesinger claims that instead of admitting their racism, Nixon's supporters used code words: welfare, crime, busing, schools, quotas. However, it should have been obvious that these were real and serious grievances. At that time, the rate of violent urban crime was rising by more than ten percent a year; children who lived a few blocks from a public school were being bussed for hours each day; etc. McGovern lost so terribly because he and his supporters thought like Schlesinger. They dismissed these real and serious grievances as expressions of racism.
   Another example is on page 437. There Schlesinger makes the interesting observation that Carter was the first Democratic president of the twentieth century whose programs did not have a label, like Wilson's New Freedom, Roosevelt's New Deal, Truman's Fair Deal, Kennedy's New Frontier, and Johnson's Great Society. He attributes this to Carter's defects. (Schlesinger loathed and execrated Carter.) Schlesinger could not see that the reason was that the Great Society completed the New Deal. (Completing the New Deal was Johnson's purpose, the dream he had had since he entered Congress as a fanatical Roosevelt supporter in 1937.) After the Great Society, there were no longer any new, broad, governmental economic programs that could gain the support of most Americans. Schlesinger regarded McGovern as the last Democratic candidate who represented the true Democratic tradition. But anyone who now reads the 1972 Democratic platform will be stunned by its vacuous phrase-mongering and shameless racial posturing. (Most Americans were revolted in 1972 also.)



3. Historian/columnist Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. was the last half-century's most prolific, eloquent liberal voice. He served John Kennedy's administration as "special assistant to the president," wrote best-selling biographies of JFK, RFK, and Franklin Roosevelt, advised, wrote and edited speeches for Senator Ted Kennedy and most major Democratic leaders, and had working friendships with most of recent history's most influential political, literary, even entertainment figures. His exhaustive life journals numbered more than 6,000 pages; Schlesinger approved their publication before his 2007 death, and they were edited by two of his sons and Penguin Press to a still-formidable 858 pages.
   
   Yet amid Schlesinger's power lunches, society parties, and foreign trips seeming the setting for each page, he writes compelling, honest looks at friends and loved ones (wife Alexandra and children, the Kennedys, Adlai Stevenson, Henry Kissinger), enemies (Roy Cohn and Caspar Weinberger but chiefly Richard Nixon as the comic villain Schlesinger calls "Tricky") and loyalty to FDR/Truman/JFK liberalism.
   
   Schlesinger's opinions and observations fascinate, whether from inside as cabinet member or distantly as seasoned political observer. He called political gamesmanship his "favorite spectator sport," and his election year entries (especially those involving a Kennedy as late as 1984) are especially savory. Not to mention his disappointment at reduced roles in Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter's administrations. (Schlesinger even paraphrased Gerald Ford describing Carter's 1980 defeat.) His year 2000 entries even echo into this year's election race with frequent positive references to Hillary Clinton (in her First Lady and Senate campaign roles), John McCain, and a haunting closing sentence on then newly-elected President George W. Bush.
   
   Schlesinger's brief period as Nixon's next-door neighbor (years after placed on Nixon's "enemies list.") reads hilarious, as do some of the more pithy presidential cracks at predecessors (JFK on Eisenhower, Ford on Nixon).
   
   Yet even in these informal settings, Schlesinger's chronicles 1963 and 1968's horrific events with mastery and mourning for friends and political heroes. He repeats a generation's feelings on November 23, 1963, when wrting, "I still cannot believe this man (JFK)...of such intelligence and gaiety and strength, is dead. The wages of hate are fearful."
   
   Schlesinger's June 9, 1968 entry is possibly even more saddening. He speaks of Senator Robert Kennedy's assassination with personal heartbreak associated with losing a younger brother: "There was for me such a poignancy about RFK," he wrote, "all the greater now that they killed him before he had the chance to place his great gifts at the service of the nation and the presidency; Jack had at least 2 ½ years." These events shadow Schlesinger throughout the rest of his life and journals, from Ted Kennedy's presidential campaigns to tourists on the Kennedy front lawn.
   
   In his recent hit album, "Memory Almost Full," Paul McCartney writes, "When I think that all this stuff could make a life/it's pretty hard to take it in." It can be argued Schlesinger stood too close by one political family to keep an historian's objectivity. Or his Washington-New York social life (chronicled endlessly) cost him understanding of how Americans lived and viewed their history. But his was an important voice and seconding motion for the post-World War II years, and this well-edited collection of observations and perspective cement his niche in history behind the political giants he advised, chronicled, and befriended. Highly recommended.



4. The man saw most everything, often from the inside. His chronicle over 40 years or so is a rich stew of inside stuff, history and gossip. Compulsive reading.



5. Schlesinger had to be one of the coolest people who ever lived. Urbane, self-confident, intellectual , insightful and incisive. He taught college and worked for his country by day and partied with high society at night. This book is filled with candid and sometimes cruel assessments of such notables as Marilyn Monroe, Gorbachev, Yeltsin, Gary Hart, Nixon, Vidal, Buckley, Hillary, JFK, Jesse Jackson, Lauren Bacall, Joan Didion, both George Bushes, Adlai Stevenson and countless others. A great read!! Especially if you are a political voyeur.

5 comments about The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World.

1. I purchased the CDs to listen in my car while I commute to learn more about Global and Macroeconomics. While it was not a classroom education it was well worth the time and money.
   
   The first several CDs cover Mr. Greenspan's early life and give a great deal of insight into how his views developed. They are very light, laced with dry (but quite amusing) humor and move along very quickly. Upon learning of his close friendship with Ayn Rand, much of his manner and opinion comes into clear focus.
   
   Namely, Mr. Greenspan is a unapologetic Free Market Capitalist. His arena is Global Macroeconomics and he embraces "Creative Destruction" wholeheartedly. While he does address the hardships of this, it is in a purely pragmatic approach. I get the feeling he does care about the socioeconomic fallout but this is not the purpose of these CDs.
   
   The middle CDs are sometimes difficult for a lay person to follow but are worth repeating to gain a better understanding. His explanations of Developing Markets, Populism, and the demise of Central Planning are very detailed and interesting.
   
   I found I enjoyed the last CDs the most as they address current global uncertainties. The spike in oil prices, the fall of the dollar, accounting scandals, changing labor markets, and need to address energy consumption. You may not agree with him on principal but he presents solid arguments in his favor.
   
   I recommend this collection to lay people interested in gaining a better understanding of Global macroeconomics and, oddly, those opposed to Globalization. While the latter may sound odd Mr. Greenspan presents his argument clearly and concisely. There are no vaguaries in his points and this allows reasoned response to to these issues.



2. It's so good to see how a man like Greenspan looks at things, his approach, and charicter. I strongly recommend



3. If you are fascinated by economics, then this is the book for you. If you are not fascinated by economics, this book is still for you. It provides a global perspective about some of the forces that move our world, and some insights into the developement of the people who are/were ultimately in a position to influence the world.



4. I actually love this book. I ordered it in hardcover first and then cancelled it and ordered it on CD figuring I would be able to get to it much quicker as an audio read in the car. My intention was correct and the content of this book is definitely worth reading. However, the audio is so uneven, especially after the biographical chapters, that it is completely distracting. I found myself having to rewind several times to get past the changes in the narrator's sound and inflection. This occurs more often in the midst of chapters and tracks than in chapter breaks. I wasn't overall crazy about the narrator, but, I believe this has more to do with the editing and producing of the disk. The narrator probably read some passages more than once and they spliced together the "best" takes. It's horrible. Do yourself a favor and read the printed version. I would give that four stars on content alone. It might have been interesting to hear Greenspan's own voice as I believe the narrator wasn't always in understanding of the text.



5. The first half of this book provides a decent history of the past 40 years, with a few special insights such as descriptions of how most presidents in that period worked (he's one of the least partisan people to have worked with most of them). The second half is a discussion of economics of rather mixed quality (both in terms of wisdom and ability to put the reader to sleep).
   He comes across as a rather ordinary person whose private thoughts are little more interesting that his congressional testimony.
   One of the strangest sections describes the problems he worried would result from a projected paydown of all federal government debt. He does claim to have been careful not to forget the possibility those forecasts could be mistaken. But his failure to mention ways that forecasts of Social Security deficits could be way off suggests he hasn't learned much from that mistake.
   He mentions a "conundrum" of falling long-term interest rates in 2004-2005, when he had expected that rising short-term rates would push up long-term rates. I find his main explanation rather weak (it involves technology induced job insecurity leading to lower inflation expectations). But he then goes on to describe a better explanation (but is vague about whether he believes it explains the conundrum): the massive savings increase caused largely by rapid growth in China. I suspect this is a powerful enough force that Deng Xiaoping deserves more credit than Greenspan for the results that inspired the label Maestro.
   The book is often more notable for what it evades than what it says. It says nothing about his inflationary policies in 2003-2004 or his favorable comments about ARMs and how they contributed to the housing bubble.
   He gives a brief explanation of how Ayn Rand converted him to an Objectivist by pointing out a flaw in his existing worldview, but he is vague about his drift away from Objectivism. His description of the 1995 government "shutdown" as a crisis is fairly strong evidence of a non-Randian worldview, but mostly he tries to avoid controversies between libertarianism and the policies of politicians he likes.
   He often praises markets' abilities to signal valuable information, yet when claiming that the invasion of Iraq was "about oil", he neglects to mention the relevant market prices. Those prices appear to discredit his position (see Leigh, Wolfers and Zitzewitz' paper "What do Financial Markets Think of War in Iraq?").
   He argues against new hedge fund regulations on the grounds that hedge funds change their positions faster than regulators can react. He is right about the regulations that he imagines, but it's unfortunate that he stops there. The biggest financial problems involve positions that can't be liquidated in a few weeks. It seem like it ought to be possible for accounting standards to provide better ways for institutions to communicate to their investors how leveraged they are and how sensitive their equity is to changes in important economic variables.
   He argues against using econometric models to set Fed policy, citing real problems with measuring things like NAIRU and GDP, but if he was really interested in scientifically optimizing Fed policy, why didn't he try to create models based on more relevant and timelier data (such as from the ISM?) the way he did when he had a job that depended on providing business with useful measures? Maybe he couldn't have become Fed chairman if he had that kind of desire.
   I listened to the cd version of this book because I got it as a present and listening to it while driving had essentially no cost. I wouldn't have bought it or read the dead tree version.

5 comments about Washington: The Indispensable Man.

1. This is an excellent book. It is well written and very informative. Not having read all of the single volume biographies of Washington, I cannot testify to its being the very best, but surly it must be one of the best. The book is Flexner's single volume abridgement of his four-volume biography. Being only one quarter the size of the complete work it cannot be as detailed, but it nonetheless provides a very coherent and compelling portrait. Perhaps the best accolade that I can give is that I now I want to know more and I am considering reading the complete Flexner series. As might be expected from the subtitle "The Indispensable Man" the book paints the most favorable picture possible and shows why Washington was indeed the "Indispensable Man". He was indispensable not only as the leader of the army but also as America's first president. His firm hand set many of the precedents that shaped the office of president.
   
   While Washington is shown in the most favorable light the same cannot be said of Jefferson and Hamilton. Both (but mostly Jefferson) are shown to be more loyal to their party (the Federalists in the case of Hamilton and the Republicans in the case of Jefferson) than to Washington. Confidences were betrayed, especially by Jefferson. If there was a villain in this story it was Jefferson, who is painted as one who was willing to bring on war with Britain in order to support France and to further his vision of an agrarian America.
   
   One word of caution - this book is not a military history of the American Revolution, or of the detailed causes of the revolution, the writing of the constitution or the complete history of Washington's presidency. All of these things are covered, but not in the detail provided in books devoted specifically to these subjects.



2. This book is a "distillation" of the author's award winning four-volume biography of Washington. "The extreme reduction of scale - to about one fifth - dictated that, if the shorter work were to have its own integrity and literary effect, the material would have to be revisualized and rewritten. Except for the account of Washington's death, the text is almost altogether new." (viii)
   
   The literary style is excellent. The narrative, however, stays so close to Washington that the historical context of his life is often only hinted at, and at times left out entirely. The chapters are, in almost every case, less than ten pages long. The book reads, with exceptions, like a series of extended, well polished essays written from selected notes compiled for a longer work - which I suppose is exactly what it is.



3. As a student for some reason I have never been able to focus on the founding fathers. I have read an assortment of biographies of Revolutionary-era politicians and military leaders and always emerge with only the faintest understanding of who these men were and what the different issues were being debated in the 1780's and 1790's. This book is the first one I've read from this period that really held my attention. Too bad I didn't have it on hand when I took my first class in American history but perhaps it might come in handy somewhere down the educational road.



4. This just isn't sufficiently accurate nor well-written given its hype and other ratings here. One example is at page 13, where Flexner describes young Washington's trip to a French fort at the confluence of French Creek with the Monongahela ("now Franklin, Pennsylvania"). The problem is that French Creek flows into the Allegheny, not the Monongahela.
   Another problem occurs when he describes (p. 24) how Washington accompanied General Braddock at the disastrous defeat at Turtle Creek in July 1755. Of course, Washington was 23 in July 1755, having been born in February 22 (Feb 11 by the old calendar), 1732. In the next chapter, he describes how after Braddock's defeat the British Army left Virginia defenseless, so the Virginia Assembly created its own army, and Washington "now twenty-two" was elected colonel (page 28).
   In an early battle of the Revolutionary War he describes how Washington held a strong position at White Plains, NY, but was outflanked and decided to move to higher hills near New Castle. Although New Castle, NY and North Castle, NY are close geographically, the hills in question are in North Castle.
   The book is also written in an annoying manner, using words (not quoted) like "unwisdom" and "plaguey." The writing seems at the level of a sophomore term paper. There have to be better one-volume biographies.



5. George Washington is known, of course, as the "father of our country"; that's not completely true, but what is true is that without Washington we might still be flying the Union Jack; he was "The Indespensable Man". He was a reticent, self-controlled, man who never let others get too close; this makes a biographer's task difficult, but it hasn't kept a LOT of people from trying. Washington may well have more published biographies than any man who ever lived; thus, we look hard at each new one, as if daring the author to justify his choice of subject. The volume here is James Thomas Flexner's abridgment of his own multi-volume work, and a wonderful offering it is.
   
   Part of the problem in a study of Washington is the immense wealth of available material; Washington was famous from his mid teens on, building a great military reputation at an age when Jefferson was still in school, and Patrick Henry was tending bar. The great Douglas Southall Freeman who wrote the definitive multi-volume biographies of both Washington and Lee commented on the differing problems; Washington was famous early; Robert E. Lee didn't "hit the big time" till he was 55, so a biographer has to hunt for the early material [again, this hasn't stopped a lot of folks from trying].
   
   Flexner has chosen to focus on the centrality of George Washington to the process of our becoming a nation...Washington was viewed as superior by his own contemporaries; their deference to him was as natural as breathing. Adams and Jefferson were better educated, many were better writers or public speakers [yes, yes, I know; Jefferson was a real thorn in his side...but that was later, and he still showed respect]. BUT, Washington had the limitless strength of character, the absolute refusal to quit no matter how bad things got [in 1776, they were pretty bad], without which we could not have won our freedom. It remained for Jefferson to think up, and write down, the ideas that make us work, but first, the battles had to be won......
   
   There are lies told about Washington, some important, some not...he never chopped down a cherry tree...he did not have wooden teeth [he had around nine sets over the years, mostly ivory, or animal teeth, spring hinged, set in a lead base...I've seen one set...hideous]...he was not without passion, he just controlled it well. Washington was not without faults; he was over ambitious, but always for the public good...he married Martha for her money...he was a lousy son to his Mother, but then Mary was a lousy mother, a real "Mommie Dearest"; still, George got his strength of character, and his horse riding ability, from her. The only real public blot I can find comes from the Presidential years....his lack of faith in Edmund Randolph.
   
   George Washington is tough for us to get a good handle on; alas, that was true for his contemporaries, too. The reasons that he is difficult to "figure out" are very different than those that Jefferson is, but still real. Everybody needs to read one good bio of Washington; this is a pretty good choice, easily readable, and readily available. Other good choices are Joseph Ellis' "His Excellency", Willard Sterne Randall, and Richard Harwell's one volume abridgment of Freeman's magnum opus [the full seven volumes are impossible to find at a decent price]. There are one volume versons of sets by Washington Irving and John Marshall, the latter abridgment done by Marshall himself. These are pretty much for people like me, and are only available thru specialized venues like Mount Vernon, or The John Marshall House. [both authors met Washington, though Irving was only seven; neither mentions Sally Fairfax...] If you want to read them all, go for it; if you only want one, try this.....

5 comments about Cancel Your Own Goddam Subscription: Notes and Asides from National ReviewPM.

1. This book is a delicious trove of correspondence that shows WFB's sense of humor and wall-to-wall good nature. He spars with critics and detractors, tweaks friends like Art Buchwald and spreads his trademark wit, logophilia and his positively infectious joie de vivre over the decades. My favorite line is from a 12 or 13-year old asking for advice on life. WFB's response: never grow up. He was a man who very obviously cherished and loved God, family and country and his loss is acutely felt. This book is a delightful snapshot of the many facets of his personality.



2. This is a collection of material from the "Notes & Asides" section of Buckley's journal, "National Review." It was a sort of grabbag section and could include office memos, speeches or whatever took Buckley's fancy. Mostly, however, it was where Buckley personally responded to some of the letters to the Review, often either unusually vitriolic ones or ones received from well-known denizens of the political world (including both actual political figures and those who wrote about them). Many of the letter writers shared Buckley's conservative views but some did not. Mostly the book is a showcase for Buckley's famous facility with words and his wit.
   
   The material is at its best when his correspondents can match, or nearly match, Buckley's ability in both areas. Over many years this happened often enough to provide a number of interesting exchanges. Buckley tended to be formally polite to everyone most of the time, although he occasionally unloads on some hapless soul, and he is also occasionally condescending to those who fall short of his standards of intelligence, education or decorum. Once in a while Buckley really goes after someone who has tried his patience badly, the salient case being Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., who comes off looking like a pompous jerk (and an overmatched pompous jerk at that) in the exchange. Buckley is all surface politeness with Schlesinger but leaves him bleeding from more puncture wounds than St. Sebastian the Martyr.
   
   The book is entertaining light reading. If you are looking for Buckley's deeper thoughts, however, look elsewhere.



3. With the publication of the wonderful Florence King's "STET, Damnit!" in 2003 and WFB's "Cancel Your Own Goddam Subscription" in 2007, National Review books are breaking new ground in the use of profanity in titles. Which is not a field in which I would have expected them to show such leadership. But since we have Buckley's own assurance in these pages (page 33, to be precise) that "goddam," as used, is profane but not blasphemous, sensitive readers should not be troubled.
   
   William F. Buckley's books can be categorized, broadly, in two ways: books of conservative theory and practice (his collected columns, "The Unmaking of a Mayor," etc.), and what could be termed personal indulgences ("Overdrive," the spy novels, and so on). This book is unquestionably an indulgence, and people who have little patience for Buckley and his well-established personality and voice will probably find this book, as they found him, infuriating. But for those of us who had great respect for the man and enjoyed watching him perform (no slight intended by use of that word), even when we may have disagreed with him, "Cancel Your Own..." is a joy to read and a foretaste of how much we will miss him in the future.
   
   As the subtitle indicates, "Cancel Your Own..." is made up of excerpts and highlights from WFB's long-running "Notes and Asides" column in NR. The book, like N&A itself, included selected correspondence, sent and received, memoranda, and other comments and exchanges WFB considered worth sharing with a wider audience. As you'd expect from a collection he assembled himself (with the help of researchers acknowledged in the text), it shows Buckley at his best, whether smacking down a critic with airy ease, refusing to tolerate misquotation or mistranslation, or simply conducting internal or external business.
   
   While personal favorites of mine include his ukase on the use of the serial comma, exchanges with Eric Alterman, and a magnificent letter from my hero Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn listing no fewer than 20 errors or linguistic or cultural solecisms in Buckley's "Who's on First," most any Buckley fan will be able to come up with their own list. On the other hand, Art Buchwald's strange obsession with Hertz rental cars, which he apparently thought was funny and about which he wrote WFB frequently, I found merely tiresome.
   
   As many of his recent obituaries noted, WFB seems to have recognized in his final years that the rightist movement he did so much to create was already in its own final years and was being replaced by a very different kind of "conservatism." So much of Buckley's work now is mostly of historic interest (who reads "Four Reforms" or "A Delegate's Odyssey" for contemporary relevance any more?). Perhaps ironically, it's now those "indulgences" that draw us most strongly. I think "Cancel Your Own..." is a book people will keep returning to, and justly so.



4. Perhaps the most delightful book I have had the pleasure of reading in a long, long time. I'm convinced my flat-mate thinks me crazy for doing nothing but laughing out loud in my room for two evenings straight.
   
   Whether you're a conservative or liberal, you will howl in appreciation of Buckley's inescapable charm and wit.
   
   Perfect for an evening of enjoyment after a long day or as a source of infuriatingly brilliant quotes and hopelessly esoteric language.
   
   Oh! to have only known the man...



5. Whether you agree with everything Mr. Buckley said or whether he made your blood boil, you'll have to agree that the man had a way with words. This book is a collection of items from the "Notes and Asides" part of National Review magazine over the years. The title comes from one of the briefest replies to a reader, made all the more unusual by virtue of the tendency for Mr. Buckley to answer a point with 10 words where 2 might do for the rest of us. I have many fond remembrances of WFB over the years and this book is a great way to bring them back to the fore. I have also recently read his first book, "God and Man at Yale", and find it frighteningly applicable to today's universities and colleges.
   
   Whether Mr. B makes you happy or makes you mad, he *will* make you laugh. I highly recommend this book.

5 comments about A Woman in Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton (Vintage).

1. Hillary is hard to hate. She is also hard to take. We owe this author and now Mr. Obama for exposing Hillary more fully than we ever thought possible. By golly, she can't hide now. The primary season seems so prolonged and such a waste of money but in some weird way, it works. It shakes the candidates down, shakes them up, and shows them for who they really are. I have never been a fan, but I know that many admirers finally saw her for what she is. I happen to have some compassion and a little sympathy for her, but I can well see that our nation has been very lucky indeed to escape her projected presidency. Much is due to this biography, all well-known facts, but as collected here by an admirer, we see how clumsy and arrogant this woman really is. What an incompetent woman. Isn't it hilarious that she has tried to run as an experienced professional; here we see her as the ham-fisted bully she is.



2. Her US presidential campaign for the 2008 election turned out to be a disaster for her, simply because a dark-horse (Barack Obama) ran much faster than she could. However, she will not give up her life dream. I am sure she is now gearing-up for the 2016 election where this "dark horse" would no longer run after the presumed successful two terms of his US presidency at White House. She could greatly contribute to his cabinet, serving as his VP (vice-president) or Secretary of State or Health with her great expertise. So I trust this 2008 book would be very useful for readers who would follow her foot steps beyond the 2008 election.



3. I bought this book because, as a former strong supporter of the Clintons through all of their thicks and all of their thins, I was alarmed at how angry I am becoming now at their current behavior in the primaries.
   
   It was described as "sympathetic," and I was hoping to find things there to admire in order to take a more moderate view of her and what seemed to me to be an almost pyschopathic campaign designed (at worst) to bring down the Party and or (even at best) to position herself to be the candidate in 2012 by destroying the man who might win in 2008.
   
   That didn't happen. I became more frightened than I was before of what might occur if she is elected president.
   
   There is instance after instance of REALLY bad judgment on her part (for example, when the 1994 loss of congress (considered to be partly due to the highhanded way she treated members of congress and others) forced her to back off from her role as Bill's main advisor, she turned the job over to (guess who?) DICK MORRIS.
   
   And she threatened Bill Bradley and Pat Moynihan with dire consequences if they even dared to question her healthcare plan. Then, she refused promising-looking compromises with Republicans that might have given us at least some kind of viable plan. And we have gone almost a decade and a half now with NO PLAN. Bernstein makes a strong point about her refusals to compromise and her arrogance about her own positions being above criticism. Can we really afford 8 years of that.
   
   The scariest part for me was the account of how she took charge of the "bimbo erruptions" by trying to paint Bill's mistresses as "stalkers" so as to dilute the possible effects of eye-witness accounts from people who had seen them together. It is hard for me to believe that feminists aren't disturbed by this bit of doberman-like behavior.
   
   The book is very interesting as a case study of an ambitious flawed woman who has expoxied herself to the fortunes of an equally ambitious, equally flawed man.
   
   But there was NOTHING in it that made me want to live throught 8 more years of wondering when the next shoe was going to drop and questioning how many of my doubts I would have to repress in order to defend them. Again.



4. I found this book to be one of the best written about Hillary Clinton. Carl Bernstein gives a fair and unbiased view of the Senator of New York. It has helped me decide who I will voting for in the presidential election.



5. Watch Video Here: http://www.amazon.com/review/R1I5MBGRHZYXY8

5 comments about Andrew Carnegie.

1. Insight into a fascinating and complex person living in a fascinating complex time. A man who was unique and had incredible influence on his surroundings, yet in many ways was typical of his era



2. David Nasaw succeeded in creating a complete record of the life of Andrew Carnegie. As the reader, you come to know that Carnegie was born to a family of poor weavers in Scotland before moving to the United States, beginning work at a young age and eventually becoming unfathomably wealthy as an investor and entrepreneur in the steel business.
   
   All of the details are there in this book, and in that way, you know the facts of Carnegie's life, but at the same time, you really never get the feeling you know Carnegie. I don't know if that is Nasaw's fault, or if Carnegie is just not a man who allows a biographer to know him very well. Either way, the book feels empty in a way that the best biographies feel full.
   
   You catch glimpses of Carnegie's true personality; he obviously liked to see himself as the wise elder statesman, handing out advice to protoges, even when those protoges were successful 50 year old business men, or even presidents. He seems to wear out his welcome, and relationship with a lot of these people because he only sees the knowledge and advice flowing one way. Carnegie comes across as a man too removed from the realities of life to understand (or maybe care) how he was truly perceived.
   
   Other than that, you never get a real feel for how Carnegie became wealthy, whether he possessed a unique talent or ability which allowed him to become the richest man in the world, or how he fit in to the world in which he lived. I recently finished "Mellon," by David Cannadine, which tackles a similarly tough subject, but I finished that book feeling like I had much more insight into the man than I did in this case.
   
   Recommended for fans of history or biography, but still missing a critical spark required of a five-star biography.



3. How to describe Andrew Carnegie? Certainly he would have to be one of the most fortunate individuals to have ever been born. Son of a hardscrabble weaver from a small hamlet near Edinburgh, Scotland, Carnegie and family immigrated to Pennsylvania whan he was a young man. Perhaps never before in history, has a particular man, with certain skills, found himself at the right place, at the right time and under the right circumstances as did Andrew Carnegie in 19th century western Pennsylvania.
   
   Despite having no formal education, Carnegie was certainly a very intelligent man. He educated himself over the years to the extent that he was considered a very philosophical author and sought after speaker on many of the issues of the day. He hitched his wagon to the right horse when he became assistant to an up and comer in the Pennsylvania Railroad. From an early age, Carnegie discovered the beauty of dividends and compound interest, money earned not by virtue of labor, but solely by virtue of having money. Due in large part to his connections, he was able to parley inside information into increasingly lucrative investments, to the point that he was soon able to turn over daily operation of his several businesses to very able lieutenants while he enjoyed the good life. These lieutenants, assisted by a series of unique events and developing technologies, made Carnegie the richest man in the world.
   
   While it may sound as if Carnegie was merely an observer and accumulator, he certainly deserves much credit for his success. He was an early pioneer in the concept of cost accounting and through a ruthless system of unit cost reduction, both in the areas of vertical integration and labor cost, was able to successfully grow his business and survive numerous economic downturns which bankrupted his competitors.
   
   Many decry Carnegie's business practices, most notably in the areas of labor/manangement relations and anti-competitive practices. However, this demonstrates a very common failing in many commentators; holding historical personages to current standards. The same people that condemn Carnegie's labor practices, denigrate George Washington for owning slaves, or Harry Truman for making racist comments. Each of these, though immoral by current standards, were men of their times.
   
   Owners of manufacturing entities were expected to battle with labor. Labor, in the mid-late 19th century was heavily connected with the burgeoning socialist movement which was looked upon with disfavor by much of society. In fact, it is no coincidence that those of Carnegie's competitors whose labor forces became organized, were largely those that failed in the repeated economic panics of the day. Carnegie succeeded, and grew, as a result of reinvesting profits and maintaining low unit cost. Ironically, though his Homestead steel works became the symbol for labor/management violence, he considered himself one of the most enlightened managers of the day.
   
   Carnegie is viewed, with Rockefeller, Morgan and Vanderbilt in the class of "Robber Barons" which sprang up during the era, however, Carnegie is vastly different than each of these individuals. While many of his contemporaries benefited and suceeded largely due to watered stock and market manipulation, he was very proud, and quick to point out that he never operated a corporation and never sold a share of stock. He was definitely NOT a monopolist (U.S. Steel was formed as a result of his sale of Carnegie Steel to J. P. Morgan and investors). He was simply a supreme capitalist and the first of his type and scale.
   
   He is condemned by others for taking advantage of political and business connections not available to others. Again, that was common practice in the era. Many things that he did, while legislated against now, were perfectly legal and accepted business practices of the times.
   
   All that having been said, I get the impression, especially in the later parts of the book, that Carnegie could be an insufferable prig. I imagine it becomes easy to view ones self as omnipotent and all wise, when everything one touches turns to gold and one is constantly praised for his good works. However, it is telling that he constantly bragged of being successful while only working 2-3 hours/day, lecturing his many employees to enjoy leisure time, while at the same time instituting a 12 hour/7 day a week work schedule. It seems almost unbelievable that he was unaware of the hypocrisy of some of actions, but after reading the book, I actually believe that he was. By letting his managers do the dirty work of making his money, he was able to "keep his hands clean" and disavow any unpleasantness that might result.
   
   Though hopelessly naive, it is difficult to condemn a man who literally pioneered the concept of philanthropy and spent his last decade in a never flagging crusade for world peace. He tirelessly advocated the formation of a League of Nations/United Nations style world arbitration body, with military enforcement powers, well before any of his contemporaries. While he would doubtless be overjoyed to learn of the existence of the current United Nations, he would nonetheless be less than pleased with its corruption and lack of effective authority.
   
   All in all, a rather good treatment, not just of Carnegie, but of the period itself and many of the historical figures of the era. At times, the book dragged and became tiresome, but not exceedingly so. I would highly recommend the book for anyone interested not just in Andrew Carnegie but in late 19th century American and British history.



4. A fascinating biography of the exuberant Scottish-American tycoon and philanthropist.
   
   Nasaw covers all of Carnegie's life from early boyhood in 1830's Scotland, to ambitious telegraph boy in Pittsburgh, to iron and steel magnate, to philanthropist and finally to international peace advocate. Most of the 800 pages go swiftly. Nasaw writes well and I generally found his very detailed account valuable, especially for Carnegie's business adventures and for his final peace activities, although perhaps rather less so for all the details of his family life.
   
   In Nasaw's account Carnegie comes across as much more of a "businessman" than an "industrialist". His initial fortune was made in his twenties through insider dealings from his role as a key aide to railroad magnates who were making their own fortunes by tricks such as awarding lucrative contracts to companies that they themselves owned. But starting in his late twenties Carnegie did build a mighty iron and steel empire, with remorseless business logic.
   
   Carnegie in his middle age inevitably comes across as a great hypocrite. He had given speeches extolling the virtues of unions and of the need for employers to treat workers fairly, but he went on to mercilessly repress workers at his own plants, including cutting wages, extending hours, and suppressing all unions. He denied responsibility for the climactic Homestead lockout which was designed to break the steel unions, but Nasaw shows that he was kept fully informed and must have either made or supported the key decisions. Nasaw explains how Carnegie rationalized this harshness to himself, as a necessary part of business and of social evolution, but still his deeds fit poorly with his words.
   
   However in his later life, especially after selling Carnegie Steel, Carnegie became indisputably a genuine exuberant philanthropist. He lived well (very well indeed!) but he also gave away a vast fortune, founding an astounding 2500 libraries, plus many Institutions, the Carnegie Hall, various Hero funds, and many peace organizations.
   
   In his latter years, Carnegie's incessant lobbying for international peace is truly striking. Nasaw sometimes deprecates Carnegie's endless expressions of optimism in the face of repeated failures and his ceaseless lobbying of presidents, monarchs, and statesmen. But given that Carnegie believed war would be a disaster (as WWI proved all too well) and was committed to doing whatever he could for peace, then his behavior seems both entirely rationale and commendable. Yes, he was often grasping at straws and he did aggressively pester and "name drop" to try to move things forward, but given the stakes it is difficult to condemn his donning of a bold face and his trying again and again in the face of failures and cynicism. Alas, his efforts were probably inevitably doomed, but given his beliefs and commitment, it seems hard to criticize him for trying as hard as he did.
   
   Overall, Carnegie's life is a fascinating one, involving many contrasts and apparent contradictions. Nasaw captures it well and succeeds in making Carnegie a surprisingly sympathetic character, without concealing his flaws.



5. This book flows well and is elegant in its prose. Some biographies can be quite tedious this one isn't.
   
   This book is full of insights such as that Teddy Roosevelt although he sought for Carnegie's support he didn't like the man. Because Carnegie was an intellectual and a manager but Roosevelt hands on in the trenches type manager.
   
   For good or evil Andrew Carnegie is right up there with Washington and Lincoln in his impact to the United States. Through his management skills he drastically cut the price of steel. This allowed for cheap consumer and industrial goods. The low cost of steel allowed the US to build the its fleet of battleships, skyscrapers, bridges dams and other large scale public and private works projects. Carnegie's mills alone had a greater output and at lower cost then England and Germany.
   
   The second reason why he transformed the US was the Gospel of Wealth. He was the impetus of charitable giving. It wasn't until after Carnegie's vast sums that his peers such as the Rockefeller's started to contribute. While others focused on art, which has a small but important impact on this country. He focused on education and funding the retirement of thousands of professors from all over the country. 2,500 public libraries. Including 5 million dollar grant to the New York Public library system.
   
   The great cultural institutions of this country Carnegie Hall the Metropolitan Museum of Art by JP Morgan National Gallery by Andrew Mellon were all funded by Republicans. The same is true today see Bill Gates.
   
   Nassaw states that 5 million dollars circa 1900 was approximately 3.5 billion today. If this is true Carnegie gave away 20 to 30 million dollars a year a sum greater than the total assets of Bill and Melinda Gates foundation.

4 comments about Flying High: Remembering Barry Goldwater.

1. I have enjoyed reading William Buckley through the years, whether it was his fiction with Blackford Oakes as the protagonist or his somewhat self-indulgent mini-autobiographies. His writing style is absolutely captivating.
   
   Flying High is a great read if you have any interest at all in the emergence of the modern day conservative movement. In light of the current political season and two candidates that are essentially trying to claim that they are moderate, or at the very least not on the extreme ends of the continuum as a liberal or a conservative, the story of conservatives not ashamed to identify themselves as such is somewhat refreshing.
   
   I am struck by the sheer force of character and the price that is paid to be a person of character, particularly in the world of rough and tumble politics. If you have never read anything about Goldwater, this would be a good start and you will no doubt want to read The Conscience of a Conservative, actually ghost written by Brent Bozell, though released under Goldwater's name.



2. The year was 1964 - President Kennedy had been martyred, and now-President Johnson looked unassailable. However, there was one man on the Conservative side who seemed willing to carry the flag, and seek to turn back the tide of Liberalism that was flowing out of Washington DC - Barry Goldwater, Au H2O. And there was one man who was always there, even if he wasn't the man the cameras were pointed at, Conservative author and thinker, William F. Buckley, Jr.
   
   This is a "what I saw at the revolution" type book. In a short, but informative narrative, Mr. Buckley takes us behind the scenes, showing who did what, and when, and why. I must admit to being largely ignorant of Barry Goldwater, but I found this book to be intriguing and informative, keeping me turning the pages and watching those heady days unfold.
   
   Overall, I found this to be a very interesting book. It is short and easy to read, and yet packs quite a wallop - there is no unnecessary detail or wasted verbiage here! If you are interested in Barry Goldwater and/or where the modern Conservative movement came from, then you should get this book. I think that it is probably the perfect Goldwater Revolution book, and I give it my highest recommendations.



3. Taking small snapshots, William F. Buckley, Jr., delivers a wonderful portrait of a pivotal time in American politics and journalism.
   
   From the 100 student activists who were part of the foundation to the modern conservative movement, to the oftentimes hilarious controversies caused by (wannabe) political insiders and adding new twists to key moments which may have faded from the pages of history, the 208 pages prove that richness is not only found in thick volumes.
   
   The friendship of Senator Barry Goldwater and Buckley, Jr., are found on each page, but this is a story of two extraordinary personalities who pushed away the clouds and reached to the blue sky, due to the realization that a revolution in political culture could be had over time by flying high.



4. I found this book written about my political hero, by one of my favorite observers of politics fun but to light. First of all large parts of the small book really don't have a lot to do with Mr Buckley's relationship with the Senator. That is probably my main take. I also feel that (many would say hoorah) that Mr.Buckley's famed sarcasm and "snobbery" were mainly missing. I certainly wouldn't want every political observer to write with his style of sarcasm (wit), namedropping elitism (lucky and talented enough to be where the action is). But watching, or reading him shred countless liberals was fun. Onto my feelings about the Senator. There has been quite a bit written about him in the last decade and much of it has brought him down to earth from his exalted place in my life. That is not to say he is not still my hero but the opportunities lost because he couldn't or wouldn't say no to the Phoenix Mafia lead me to wonder the big what if question. No he wouldn't have won in '64 but the defeat could have been much smaller and possibly set 1968 up for a change that would have been wonderful not only for the U.S. but the world instead we had to wait until 1980. Final word, at Amazon's price it's worth it and it will be an enjoyable 2 days. Next Pure Goldwater I'm hoping it's effect will be similar to Reagan's Diaries. Interesting point it's funny how the personal and political stock of both Goldwater and Reagan have risen in the eyes of all thinking liberals (that of course excludes the likes of Huffington etc).

5 comments about Fear No Evil.

1. In this classic, in the tradition of The Gulag Archipelago: 1918-1956, Prisoner of Zion, Natan Sharansky, one of the greatest Jewish heroes of our time, tells of his nine years in Soviet prisons and gulags, because of his desire to live in the ancient homeland of the Jewish people.
   Sharansky was first denied an exit visa to Israel in 1973. Seperated from his wife, Avital, a day after thewir marriage, in 1974, Sharansky fought for the rights of Jews in the Soviet Union as well as the rights of other persecuted minorities such as Pentecostals, Catholics, Ukrainians, Crimean Tatars and ethnic Germans, which disproves the repulsive charge by anti-Semites that Zionists only care about their own people.
   He worked as a translator for Soviet dissident and human rights champion Andrei Sakharov, and his spokesman.
   Sakharov never stopped fighting for Sharanky's freedom, for human rights and for the Jews of the Soviet Empire.
   Sharanky describes his life in the preface as a Jews growing up in Russia, and his mental liberation from Soviet thought slavery, by his discovery of his Judaism and Zionism. He then details his 1977 arrest, and his nine years of brutal incarceration.
   He never bowed to his captors and refused to have anything to do with the perfidious KGB.
   A variety of mental and physical tortures were used to try to break Sharansky, but he never flinched.
   Always given courage by the word of the G-D of Israel, and particularly guided by Psalm 23:
   "Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death
   I will fear no evil
   For though art with me..."
   Indeed he did not fear the evil of the Soviet tyranny.
   His wife Avital tirelessly fought for his release as his cause became known in the free world, and fought for by all freedom-loving people.
   The book ends with Sharansky's release in 1986 and his aliyah to Israel, where he was reunited with his wife.
   The book is a testament to the evils of a one party tyranny.
   It is a testament to the eternal endurability of the Jewish people, and their unbreakable bond wit the Land of Israel.
   Unltimately it is a testament of hope and of freedom of the human spirit.
   Today the same Communist ideology that persecuted Sharansky is waging a jihad of intellectual terrorism against Israel and her people.
   But the courage of people like Sharansky and the people of Israel has shown that Israel can and will prevail.



2. Natan is a hero to the human race. He is wise beyond his years and his wife really proved what true love is. No wonder our Oresident sticks to his convictions. We should all be like Natan



3. "[Saul] put a coat of armor on him and a bronze helmet on [David's]head. David fastened on his sword over the tunic and tried walking around... "I cannot go in these," he said to Saul, "because I am not used to them." Then he took his staff in his hand, chose five smooth stones from the stream, put them in the pouch of his shepherd's bag and, with his sling in his hand, approached [Goliath]".
   
   So begins the story of the famous battle between the future King David of Israel and the giant Phillistine during Biblical times. In Natan Shcharansky's "Fear No Evil" (the title taken from one of David's own psalms), the author is less equipped even than young David in battling the ubiquitous and evil KGB, which maintains an illegal presence in the prisons he's held in (again, illegally), accused of spying for western countries. But because of decisions he makes early in his arrest, he is the victor in the struggle waged over his soul by men who would like him to acknowledge he is wrong, who would like him to implicate others in his "crimes" in order for favors from them, or who would simply like him to stop being the delightful fly in the prison ointment he is.
   
   Shcharansky's only weapons during his trial and during his following prison term, consist of his personal integrity, which remains unsullied; his faith and trust in his family and friends; and a tiny book of psalms that he will spare nothing in reminding prison officials he is entitled to. He sometimes has to wage a hunger strike for these things, but always wins. It is true that his wife, who managed to reach Jerusalem before Shcharansky's arrest, is on a worldwide campaign for his release, resulting in no less than two sitting US presidents mentioning him by name in speeches heard by Soviet officials as a political prisoner, as well as global support, but Shcharansky does not learn this until later, and so believes he is virtually alone in the fight.
   
   This gritty autobiography is a lovely example of human survival, and how one can keep his humanity in a horrific place. Shcharansky's relationships with his fellow "zeks" (prisoners) is especially touching, and we're able to get a glimpse of how even the guards in the system have surrendered their souls in this "police state".
   
   A great read for anyone questioning how to survive while it seems suffering and injustice are towering overhead. Very inspiring.



4. Having met Sharansky in Israel (Birthright alumni!), and having had a long time interest in the Soviet Jewry dissident movement - which allowed my own (Jewish) family to emigrate from the Soviet Union in '91 - I had little doubt as to the outcome of Sharansky's imprisonment. As someone who has read a number of books on similar subjects - in particular the Alexander Solzenytsin "Archipelag Gulag" series - I was a bit dissapointed with "Fear no Evil". (Nevermind that Solzenytsin is widely believed to be an anti-semite; I'm speaking of the literary aspect only.)
   
   In contrast to Solzenytsin's breathtakingly vivid literary style and powerful analysis of the core of the Soviet regime and it's criminal code, Sharansky's book read rather like an eagle's eye view of a convoluted social and political order. "Fear no Evil" reads instead like a game of mental swordsmanship, with a self-inflicted narrow focus quite removed from breadth and depth of a much needed analysis on the Soviet system as a whole.
   
   However, Sharansky does not proclaim himself to be a literary guru. This book is a poignant (if dry) portrayal of one man's fight for freedom - both for himself and 2 million of his people. The uncompromising stance taken by the author with the Soviet regime throughout his imprisonment - his life, family and future hanging in the balance - is awe-inspiring in its simplicity and effectiveness.
   
   It has become a cliche in our time that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". Yet the Sharanskys of the world have proven that one need not be a terrorist to be a freedom fighter. Where are such men today?



5. Natan Sharansky's book "Fear No Evil" is a readable account of his time in the Soviet gulag for his dissident activities. The book is detailed and inspirational. Sharansky's courage in facing the KGB is a lesson that we can all learn from.
   
   The book itself reads fast, thanks to Sharansky's ability to make the read interesting. I would recommend this book to anyone who wants to gain insight in what life was like for a political prisioner in the USSR; to anyone who wishes to be inspired by ones courage, or to anyone who wishes to just sit down and read a thoroughly enjoyable book.