5 comments about Exposing the Real Che Guevara: And the Useful Idiots Who Idolize Him.

1. This book is so bias that it makes books by people like Michael Moore look truthful--and in all openness, I love Moore's books, I find them hilarious--but that's okay, if you can make some clear points and elaborate on them. However, in this book, that steams with the sated hatred Mr. Fontova has for Che and the people that like him and think him a Revolutionary, his points are too broad, and too outward against what is actually known. But I will be fair and show the points that he did make that are true.
   
   1. Che was a murderer.
   2. Che participated in acts of torture.
   3. Che was responsible for the murder of several male teens.
   4. Che aided in installing an egaltarian dictatorship--though much of communism is shadowed on egalitariaism, Castro's views are to the extreme.
   5. Che was not a chivilarous and kind person who only wanted freedom.
   
   All of these things are true about Che Guevara, he shouldn't be an icon of freedom. But the smart person sees him as one for Revolution. He was a revolutionary. He was not a psychotic, though he did suffer from paranoia, his acts of murder of the multitude of men that he did kill (quite a lot less than what Fontova has listed, 14,000, more like 4 or 6), came not from a callousness, but from a fear of being overtrown and killed (this is referenced in the change of voice in his journals through the times, several biographies, not to be biased myself, but Che A Revolutionary's Life is one great source). He did not murder children. He did murder boys--teenagers--old enough to take up arms that he felt a threat, or a support of the former dictatorship. He disowned the movement with Fidel after seeing what Fidel did with the power. Che Guevara did believe what he spoke and did believe in what he was doing, it made him a dangerous person, a person that would not stop until he accomplished his goals. He was willing to die for his cause. He was a revolutionary.
   
   I do not like Che Guevara, I think he's overhyped. I do not like this book. I think it's a poorly written, poorly structured, and even worst, poor lies--if you're going to lie to me, at least do it creatively and believably like Michael Moore. There are plenty of reasons to not like Che Guevara, but the facts in this book aren't one of them.



2. Exposing the Real Che Guevara is an interesting text, and certainly sheds some light on a man who was a blight in twentieth century history. I learned some out of the ordinary facts in this text, and I would tell people to read it simply as a starting point to finding out the truth about Che.
   Having said that though...Mr. Fontova's prejudices come through, and he has a right to them. But in being so emotional, he gives his detractors something to point at and belittle. This allows people, and disingenuous reviewers on this site, to distort the book by attacking his obvious emotional bent without touching on the truth in this book. For the most part Fontova substantiates most of what he says, and some of it is truly shocking. Still, I keep coming back to my desire for a more scholarly approach to this text. The book suffers from redundancy and that again takes away from his thesis. This text is imminently readable, which I think accounts for some of the author's simplistic style choices, and I hope it serves as a jumping off point for even more scholarly research into the joke that is the myth of Che Guevara.



3. this book doesn't expose how truely evil che was. i'll allways remember his evil laugh while being tortured, i was one of the lucky ones who managed to escape during the revolution



4. This book is a quick and easy read. Obviously I am not a researcher and don't have time to fact check everything here. My sense was that most of what the author was recounting was true. It is probably true that in the end Che was a pompous, vain, ignoble wanker trying to pass himself off as the savior of the third world. It is probably also true that directly or indirectly he was responsible for the deaths of thousands, most of whom did not deserve it by any yardstick, revolutionary or otherwise.
   The delivery of these facts and anecdotes is so dripping with sarcasm and hatred that it takes away somewhat from being able to see it as a serious work. The author frequently references with disdain those who have written biographies, citing the references usually come from pro-revolution types who are anything but objective. Unfortunately, this work is so full of passion itself that while probably mostly true and accurate that it defeats his desire to be taken as seriously as other works. I would love to see a book that objectively and impassionately takes these events he describes and fleshes it out with more detail and perhaps a more sober attitude.
   I do have to admit that his lampooning of the Hollywood libertards regarding Che is hilarious. I gave this book three stars because I think it should have been more. That said, I did enjoy it and think it serves well as educational entertainment.



5. Hollywood, the mainstream media, university professors and America-haters idolize him as a humanitarian freedom fighter. In reality, Ernesto "Che" Guevara was nothing more than a sadistic, cold-blooded mass murderer. Fontova documents the truth about this power-hungry terrorist and the "useful idiots" who idolize him.

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.

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 Georgiana: Duchess of Devonshire (Modern Library Paperbacks).

1. I was never a biography fan until this book. Foreman does a dazzling job of bringing Georgiana to life. I could read this book over and over again!



2. if some one told me what really happen 18th century upper crust i would not believe them.money,sex,adultery,hidden preganacy,lesbianism,royality,gambling and drug addiction.fashion theather social scandals,politics,betrayal, blackmail and war.it's a soap opera that really happen.even a evil bestfriend who bears two childern by georgina husband is through in.this book is addictive.i didn't put it down till last page.



3. I was wanting more of a historical novel but this book reads more like a text book. Almost every page has notes at the bottom of the page, this makes for very "choppy" reading. Interesting subject but not a cozy read. I had to make myself finish the book.



4. I am currently obsessed with Jane Austen, came across a glowing review of "Georgiana: Duchess..." in the New Yorker, and couldn't resist reading this story of Regency England. Unlike Austen's heroines, the Duchess has a very dark side - she's a gambler, adulteress, liar, drug addict...I found myself wanting her to be happy (and to win against the evil Bess) in spite of (or because of?) these qualities. In the end, her charisma, beauty, fashion, gentleness, vulnerability, wit, privilege, and political engagement endear her.
   
   I loved the book, the story, the characters, the history, and the politics. Unlike some other reviewers, I found Foreman's writing incredibly engaging and easy to read.



5. Foreman writes a good biography firmly grounded in academic research but lucid and readable for the nonacademic reader. She suffers slightly from a bias towards her subject - which she admits herself in her introduction - but overall a solid work. I'll look forward to more by this author.

1 comments about Redneck Boy in the Promised Land: The Confessions of "Crazy Cooter".

1. I've met Ben and he is exactly how he presents himself in this book -- a witty, charismatic man who has overcome adversity and remembers where he come from. This is a good, inspiring story of recovery.

5 comments about The Last Lion: Winston Spencer Churchill, Alone 1932-1940.

1. Finest biography on Churchill ever written. A pity Manchester died before completing the third book of the trilogy.



2. The Last Lion, Alone covers the history of Europe from the time Hitler first came to power in Germany to the time that Hitler invaded the Low Countries and World War II began. During this period Churchill, who continually fought against the appeasement policies of Chamberlain, rose from Back Bench irrelevance to become Brittan's Prime Minister.
   
   The history of this period is a gripping saga of one man's malicious attempt to dominate Europe and another man's noble efforts to stop him - a classical case of good vs evil - told as an almost unbelievable story in the words of a master story teller.



3. William Manchester informs and entertains in this excellent historical account of the critical years leading up to WWII, juxtaposing the appeasement practices of predecessors Baldwin and Chamberlain with the unwavering belief in the principles of freedom held by Churchill. The book (along with Manchester's first volume) gives terrific insight into the transition from the glory days of the British Empire to the Post WWI apathy that beset the British public. As well, the work provides delightful commentary on the characters surrounding Churhill's life including his colorful mother Jennie, his wife Clementine and his nemesis Adolf Hitler.



4. After the fall of France in June 1940, Winston Churchill was begging USA President Roosevelt for military aid (in fact, all sorts of support was then needed) as no one knew what would the 'fate' of the French fleet was going to be.
   Churchill kept reminding the American president that Britain would not surrender even if left alone.
   Churchill was defiant despite the fact that the two 'key' American ambassadors, in France and Great Britain, were pro Hitler (or at least they were not anti-Nazi).
   Joseph Kennedy (USA Ambassador to GB) openly cautioned his fellow Americans against entering the war because the 'allies' would soon be beaten.
   However, I would have liked to see more comments about the position and reaction of the king - king George VI.
   Was he indifferent?
   We should remember that Hitler had been addressing the King as the man whom the British Government circles have loathed, and as the only 'hope' for a reconciliation between the Third Reich and GB.
   In this context it is true that Churchill was indeed ALONE



5. I was adrift when I finished this volume.
   grasping at pathetic things to read for a while - nothing satisfied - Manchester can set the stage, his historical background is so rich that you'll find yourself spouting about it to your friends.
   
   You'll learn more from this book than a two semester course in 20th century history.
   
   Churchill himself is the lead player in a panapoly of exciting elements. But manchester never lets the reader forget the place in history - the man was a masterful writer.

5 comments about Profiles in Courage (P.S.).

1. This book is well written, engaging and tells stories of courageous political leaders. Once you pick this book up you won't be able to put it down, and it will stick with you for years. He won the Pulitzer for a reason; we all need a reminder that doing what's right but unpopular leaves a far richer legacy than making decisions that win short term allies.



2. 
   I read this book quite a while back and found some great food for thought. One of my primary takeaways was that be careful when judging others motives.
   
   Kennedy (or whoever wrote the book) poses a primary question: Which is better...the man who will not compromise at all, or the man who bends but does not break?
   
   The argument is that the man who does not compromise may be considered true to his cause, but may get little done. The man who compromises to get things done may not be 100% true to his cause but is able to forward some of his ideas.
   
   The author(s) leave it up to the reader to decide (judge) if the path is right. Or, are both paths right? This is good food for thought for a critical thinker!
   
   What the author(s) is pointing at is that each man and woman must choose their own path in a situation according to their beliefs, values and morals, even if it may cause political and/or other ruin.
   
   The Re-Discovery of Common Sense: A Guide to: The Lost Art of Critical Thinking



3. John F. Kennedy makes an excellent contribution to history with this book. It describes the lives of several distinguished Americans who, in the course of history, have shaped the face of the United States. All these biographies are interesting. History becomes very much alive with this book, and Kennedy does an excellent job in showing how men can contribute to the life of a nation. What is even more noteworthy is that that is what he himself did. This new edition of the book has an excellent preface by Caroline Kennedy, herself an eminent legal scholar.



4. It's the 50th anniversary of the publication by John Kennedy of the book `Profiles In Courage' and its subsequent winning the Pulitzer Prize for Biography. The non-fiction political tome features Kennedy's interpretation of eight U.S. Senators who placed the interests of the country and what was morally right regarding some momentous decision over the wishes of their political party and own potential self-advancement to higher office.
   Is there anyone presently in the Senate with presidential aspirations who can offer the same courage and moral convictions to do what's right in the manner the eight figures from history the future 35th president chose to write about to further the public trust at the risk of their own political career?
   Kennedy began the book in 1954 while in his first term as a U.S. Senator but undergoing convalescence from a surgery on his back to relieve stress from the injuries he received in combat during World War Two. There's still debate on how much of the book was actually written by Kennedy or what part was researched and prepared by underlings of his staff. But most experts agree that the senator supervised the editing of the material and selected which of those who were to be profiled.
   The book was positively received and it helped place Kennedy into national prominence. The Massachusetts senator used that notoriety to offer his name as a vice-presidential candidate at the 1956 Democratic Party convention. He then became one of that party's frontrunners for the 1960 presidential election which he ultimately won.
   It's apparent that when JFK served in the Congress he had contempt for the workings of the political patronage system when trying to obtain a consensus to solve the nation's problems as a congressman, then as senator. Most historians agree that he disliked the `good ol' boy' networking that future running mate Lyndon Johnson used as the Senate Majority Leader in making deals to please all sides on a matter and wanted those in that legislative body to take the moral high ground when debating the issues facing the nation to get legislation passed. That's why Kennedy decided to write the book for the next generation of politicians who would come after him to feature those who had taken a courageous stand as an inspiration to the succeeding groups of leaders.
   Kennedy acknowledges the responsibilities felt on any politician, especially one who is a senator, to keep everybody happy. He cites three specific pressures put on all leaders, including himself, to keep everyone satisfied.
   He writes that all senators want to be liked by the voters, they have a desire to be re-elected and feel the enormous pull of special interest groups seeking legislation that is favorable to their specific cause that can adversely affect the tough decisions they must make.
   So who did Kennedy select as standing up for principles and not continuing the status quo that ultimately wrecked their own political aspirations for the betterment of the country?
   They were John Quincy Adams for breaking away from the Federalist Party, Daniel Webster for speaking in favor of the Compromise of 1850 that delayed the start of the Civil War, Thomas Hart Benton for staying in the Democratic Party despite his opposition to slavery and Sam Houston for opposing the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854.
   Also included were Edmund G. Ross for voting against the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, Lucius Lamar for his attempt to mend ties between the North and South during Reconstruction, George Norris for coming out against arming U.S. merchant ships before the U.S. officially entered World War One and Robert Taft for criticizing the Nuremberg Trials that prosecuted high-level Nazi war leaders under what he considered ex post facto laws that were forbidden by the U.S. Constitution.
   It's obvious the eight senators Kennedy selected decided to make a courageous, yet unpopular choice on an issue to put the interests of the nation and world over their own political aspirations at a time of crisis. How come we don't have any leaders like those eight today?
   The United States Senate is called the last great place for oration and debate as the issues facing the nation and world are discussed by one hundred of the nation's political elite. But can a U.S. Senator be elected from that office today directly to the presidency by taking a potential career-ending stance on today's hot button matters? No one has successfully done so since John Kennedy did in 1960.
   That doesn't bode well for Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John McCain, Barrack Obama and any other potential future candidates from that legislative body as we approach the 2008 presidential election. Many have tried since JFK's triumph and all have failed, the most recent being John Kerry in 2004.
   It's going to be extremely difficult for this current brood of senators, be they male or female; Republican, Democrat or independent; to exhibit the same virtuous characteristics of those Kennedy profiled to get elected as our next president under our current political structure of stalemate government gridlock that forces them to refrain from taking any courageous stand on the issues that need immediate resolution.
   That's a loss for all of us.



5. What President Kennedy shows in this book is a series of examples to all our modern politicians. It's a book to read and keep in mind.

5 comments about Living History.

1. For me, the book was particularly a big bore. It seems as though her autobiography is an attempt to glorify her years sidelined in the White House. The book can only be truly enjoyed by Hillary enthusiasts. I'm not a critic of Hillary Clinton, but specifically this book was written with very dry, shriveled style. If you'd like to read a decent biography of Hillary Clinton, I suggest Carl Bernstein's biography of her.



2. A Memoir Review: Living History
   By Hillary Clinton
   
   Upon witnessing abridged television clips of Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign speeches, I made the ignorant assumption the Presidential hopeful was clueless: "she's the wife of a former President; based on what professional formation does she speak?" The impression was unjustifiable. I considered her candidacy an attempt to re-establish the family name given former President Bill Clinton's embarrassing impeachment. Politics, after all, is much more than meets the eye, and as I discovered via the woman's autobiographical memoir Living History, Hillary Rodham Clinton is certainly much more than meets the eye.
   
   My primary reason to pick up Clinton's book was to learn about her political career--nevertheless, the work covers her early life extensively. This is appropriate, and crucial to set the context of her years as an executive. The initial chapters are engaging: not only are they an insightful look into Hillary as a young woman, but also an insightful look at being an American youth in the sixties. Clinton's extensive resume is testament to her scholarly knowledge, and her presence behind the scenes at The White House contributes to an equally significant practical knowledge. Hearing of her pioneering speech at Wellesley College, the first student to have ever given a commencement address, her entry into the all-male Rose Law Firm, and her intertwining of typically hardball politics and compassionate child work made me recognize Hillary Rodham was bound for a high-profile political career long before meeting William Jefferson Clinton.
   
   Clinton's writing embodies humanistic qualities, as if she is still an accessible advocate for everyday hiring. This fact is emphasized by her commentary on routine activities, and her naming of each political associate with which she worked. This latter aspect truly fleshes out the memoir--regardless, the squat descriptions of her colleagues sound unappealingly phoney. Everybody in Arkansas seems to be a close friend of the couple: "As soon as Bill and I became a couple, they became friends of mine. And their sons became close to Chelsea" (Clinton 105). Speaking of partner Sara Ehrman, a member of Senator McGovern's legislative staff, "We sized each other up and decided we would enjoy the ride together, and it was the start of a friendship that endures today" (Clinton 60).
   
   Alluding to "businessman and longtime politico" Jim McDougal, he "was a character: charming, witty and eccentric as the day is long" (Clinton 87). Admiring former Mayor of Little Rock, "Webb Hubbell was a big, burly, likeable man" (Clinton 80). Referring to trip director Kelly Craighead, "she had a lot of insight, dedication and spunk." Clinton chooses three formulaic adjectives to describe each of her acquaintances, and the mechanical style soon becomes tedious. The technique corroborates the "safeness" of Clinton's autobiography: nothing shocking, nor a "tell-all"--simply reserved commentary of nationally and personally historic moments. Understandable, since she would be running for President six years later. In this sense, I do believe there were ulterior motives for the memoir's release; the 2003 year of publishing was opportunely timed for Clinton's 2008 candidacy. The latter stipulation supports my learning that a Presidential campaign begins as soon as one shakes hands with the lowest-ranking political official twenty years from an official convention, and that one's private life will be increasingly scrutinized and distorted.
   
   There is little mention of the financial burden statewide and national elections place on nominees, which I found surprising given Bill Clinton's numerous campaigns. This is insight I was looking forward to reading about, given its increasing importance in our visually driven and electronic society.
   
   Though I have not reached the chapters focussing on the infamous Whitewater scandal, nor her conversations with Eleanor Roosevelt, I have already changed my impression of Hillary Rodham Clinton: she is a well-informed Democrat, whose has consistently demonstrated her leadership skills. Clinton is an activist currently living in manner she has promoted all her life, literally living history.



3. So many people want to give their opinion of Hillary and not the book itself. I found the book extremely interesting and informative and the information she provides about all of the things she learned as First Lady I do feel made her perfectly well suited to become President. She knows all the appointments that need to be made, all the jobs that need to be filled, and she's learned what types of comments and actions can get you in trouble while in the White House. I find her incredibly smart and had no idea of all the different issues that she is familiar with and all the people and friends she has made over the years who can and do give her insight. All in all a delightful book and a good read.



4. Most conservatives give this book 1 star. Why? EVERY conservative should read this book. Now if I were judging it purely as a memoir, let's just say that James Frey has nothing on Hillary Clinton when it comes to "embellishment" (or should we call it "mis-writing"?).
   
   But for those conservatives who know how to do a web search or two, this book is rife with useful material. Contrast her story of Watergate versus Jerry Zeifman's account, for instance. Or read pages 440, 448, 465-466 on her account of how she and Chelsea learned about Monica Lewinski (and then ask after repeating the names Juanita Broaddrick, Elizabeth Ward, Paula Corbin, Kathleen Wiley, Gennifer Flowes, Paula Jones, etc. "So, you're telling me that this is how it went down? OK, so choose -- is she the dumbest woman in America or the biggest liar?").
   
   For a real laugh, read her account of Whitewater -- seriously, if you read this out loud, people would think you're doing a comedy routine.
   
   And her rewriting of the history of her health insurance debacle and the aftermath is priceless. Her tales of Bill's leadership and how she was a support are gems.
   
   EVERY conservative should buy several colors of highlighters and read this book (preferably alongside a copy of Dick Morris' Rewriting History). Besides, with every book purchase, you get a free dartboard (the cover).



5. Hillary tells it like it is! She is a wonderful person who works hard everyday to help others around her reach their goals while achieving her own! She is going to make a great frist women perident!! This is a must own CD!!

5 comments about The Prince of Darkness: 50 Years Reporting in Washington.

1. My measure of a fascinating book is how often I'm interrupting my wife to read her a paragraph or a page. Based on dozens of irritating interruptions this past month, my wife would agree that Novak's book met and exceeded my standards.
   
   Bob Novak has penned a remarkable memoir spanning 50 years of political reporting in Washington, D.C. If you're over 50, you'll be amazed and alarmed at the political background info and revelations. (He names names and doesn't hold back on his strong, conservative opinions.) If you're under 50, I'd humbly suggest this be required reading--because it's possible you've missed the all-important context that only a 50-year in-the-trenches reporter/commentator can deliver. Though written a year ago, the book immediately sheds light--and context--on the current U.S. presidential campaign.
   
   Novak comments on Reagan, "I came to understand that the presidency is a leadership position that has very little to do with management." On Bob Dole: "Dole was a hopeless micromanager, inappropriate for a presidential candidate and indeed for a president." Ross Perot and Jimmy Carter fared no better on the management-o-meter. Albeit in my book, Mastering The Management Buckets: 20 Critical Competencies for Leading Your Business or Non-profit, I argue that leadership and management cannot be separated, Novak, in fact, demonstrates a very savvy insight into all things leadership.
   
   Novak also reveals his extraordinary access to "senior administration officials" at the highest levels--and what motivates Democrats and Republicans alike to leak such info. It will surprise you--and discourage you. You may also want to re-think the expectations you have regarding the loyalty of your own team members at your workplace.
   
   There's minimal gray area in Novak's historical travelogue. When Vice President Al Gore reneges on a verbal commitment to Novak, it's not forgotten. Lack of integrity always causes relational damage, as was the case with MSNBC Hardball host Chris Matthews. (By the way, and for balance, I also recommend Matthew's book, Life's a Campaign: What Politics Has Taught Me About Friendship, Rivalry, Reputation, and Success.)
   
   Ten years ago, following a four-year investigative journey from his Jewish roots to the Christian faith, a college student challenged him, "Mr. Novak, life is short, but eternity is forever." He writes, "I became convinced that the Holy Spirit was speaking through this Syracuse student." He embraced Christ and was baptized and confirmed at St. Patrick's in Washington, D.C. in 1998.
   
   Warning: it's 662 pages long. Guarantee: you'll wish it was 1,000 pages. And yes, I read every page. While the chapter titles make it easy to scan, don't--you'll miss the morsels. It gets my highest recommendation.



2. It took me a little while but I read each and every word of this 638-page Washington memoir by Robert Novak. While Novak clearly sees the world through his right-wing perspective, the dirty little secret is that he can usually rise above this point of view and be just as tough and analytical on conservative republicans as he can on liberal democrats and become a terrific and perceptive reporter. As proof, Novak cites his usually dead-on predictions through the Evans and Novak Political Report of election results for each two-year cycle.
   
   His book is amazingly candid in revealing many of his sources throughout his 50 years of reporting in Washington as well as frequent references to his personal assets and earnings throughout the years, which he uses to measure his success. Novak has and continues to suffer from an almost innumerable amount of illnesses (including several bouts of cancer) which he details throughout the book, but it all doesn't matter--The column or the (CNN) show must go on! Because he is so tough and serious about his work, he makes enemies amazingly easy and often converts former friends to enemies after some "misunderstanding" which he points out is never his fault.
   
   The book does offer some great insights into some of major events and figures of our times with a special emphasis on politicians' and other reporters' hypocrisy whether it's Dick Armey, Bill Kristol, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, Bob Dole, Wolf Blitzer--well, you get the idea.
   
   What I found amazing is that Novak--as a central figure in at least part of the CIA leak case--never references the name of Scooter Libby and he makes no acknowledgment that his column's reference to Valerie Plame had a contributing role in Libby's actions which led to Libby's conviction. This is an example, I think, of Novak's inability to often "connect the dots" which looks to be one of his weaknesses.
   
   Finally, Novak also shows himself to be a very sensitive individual and he seems to take special "joy" in using his latest and the most personal of his books to settle old grudges--both personal and political. It was somewhat disappointing (but revealing and entertaining) to learn that Novak just can't help himself throughout the book in attacking the policies of George McGovern. Gee, Bob--that was 36 years ago. Oh well.
   
   This is a solid read and will fill in many of the blanks in your knowledge of the last 50 years in Washington, D.C. I strongly recommend it especially for those who have an interest in journalism and media as well as politics.



3. I'll come clean and admit off the bat that I like Robert Novak. I don't dislike someone because of their political ideology if they can sublimate that to their profession. I like his combative style, his principles, his philosophical underpinnings which - one notices distinctly - set him against those who one would assume would be natural allies (Bush, Dole, Bush II, Eisenhower, various conservatives). Indeed, his traditional Republican values of personal liberty, sound currency, a foreign policy of non-intervention, a free-market (vs government-imposed or Socialist) approach to societal problems - these eventually set him squarely against the Washington elite regardless of party. This principled approach helped maintain his independence over the years instead of becoming a party hack mouthing the party line as so many journalists are wont to do tody.
   
   In the end, though, his is a story about journalism. He continually went after the big story. The book is framed around the so-called Plame affair and in this case, Novak's version was completely verified by all those concerned - the special prosecutor, witnesses and the Senate committee that found Wilson had gave untruthful testimony. One notes repeatedly how often Bob Novak reports on incidents that put himself in a bad light or shows that he made a mistake at the time - a rarity in either DC politics or modern journalism.
   
   His sources were legendary - Patrick Moynihan, Jack Kemp, lobbyists, secretaries, ambassadors, Karl Rove - the list goes on. These provided so many exposes and behind-the-scenes "what really happened" incidents that they are too numerous to attempt to enumerate. His Evans & Novak column, his CNN shows, his personal and private friendships and wars make for fascinating reading from a true Washington "insider." The personal touch - his conversion from a fuzzy Jewish background to Catholicism - gives us that human touch needed in tomes like these. My Grade: A



4. An autobiograpy of Novak career as a journalist, this book is a tour de force of his personal recollection and opinion of an imposing array of the famous, near famous, would be famous US political figures of the past 50 years.
   
   I heartily recommend this book as nostalgia for readers of my generation and an educational primer for the younger.



5. As a retired journalist I thought "The Prince of Darkness" was one of the best autobiographies I've ever read. This book should be required reading for journalism students. Novak is probably one of the best pure reporters in the last half century. If you're one of Novak's contemporaries you can relate to the politicians, communicators, and other prominent Americans and the pivotal events he discusses so succinctly. I especially enjoyed his personal reaction to Joseph Wilson, husband of Valerie Plame. I think that his integrity is the major reason his career was so successful. His opinions and his reporting come straight from the shoulders--direct and more often than not right on the mark.

5 comments about Escape from Slavery: The True Story of My Ten Years in Captivity and My Journey to Freedom in America.

1. This book is a must read!!! I recommend this book...inspiring. as well as sad when Francis and many others have to suffer...I honestly did not know that slavery still exist in sudan and many other countries



2. The first portion of the text is hard to put down, an eye-opening first person account of a life torn from his home community. The later narrative of his work with the NGO, testifying, lecturing and the like is a bit stilted and boring, and some of the culture conflicts upon arrival in the USA seem exaggerated for attention or effect. Still, a worthy subject matter and interesting author.



3. Two days ago I began to read "Escape from Slavery". I have hardly wanted to set it down since I picked it up. I have been saddened but incredibly inspired. I am forcefully reminded that freedom is a miracle too easily taken for granted. Until this week, I admit I was completely ignorant of Sudan, let alone the plight of it's people. In fact, I only knew Sudan was another big country "somewhere in Africa". This book is not a history of Sudan, but it does put it on the map for you. It does not try to expound on all of the political issues, but it paints a very human picture of how the government affects the people. This is one young man's compelling account of his early life and journey as a slave in Sudan. It is told in a simple, clear and honest voice. For me, Sudan is now the birthplace of Piol Bol Buk - known today as "Francis Bok". It is the place where Piol laughed and played with his family. He made clay cows with his friends, and dreamed of being like his father. It is the place where Piol was entrusted one day to take his mother's produce to sell at the market...and would never return. Here was a little boy forced to witness unspeakable violence, and who had everything taken away from him. However, no one could take his indomitable spirit. Sudan is a place where innocent lives are crushed every day, and yet it is also the place where Francis Bok was created. Francis humbly and painstakingly details his escape, the agonizing immigration process, and the miraculous turn of events that ensued. Francis has begun to fulfill his father's prophesy that someday he would do "great and important things" and would have the strength of "twelve men". This is a story about slavery, but it is really a story about hope, faith, will-power and determination. It is a miraculous story. Who could have imagined that this young boy with no hope of survival would make such a huge impact for his country already? Truly inspirational! This is a testament that the human spirit can survive unspeakable things - and then can rise from the ashes. When you find a story like this, you just can't wait to share it with the world! Francis Bok lived through such horrific pain, and yet now we have the chance to listen to his story, and to make a difference in the world just like he has. I hope that you will choose to read this story. I know that you will be so grateful!



4. This is a powerful book. It is written in a clear and engaging style. It is important that people know about the human rights abuses going on in Sudan. Mr. Bok's story does this in a meaningful and moving way.



5. I read this book for one of classes and I must say that while I tend not to be a fan of non-fiction I was completed enamored by this book. Bok wrote a very engaging story about his life and his involvement in making a difference in what is occurring in Sudan. I liked so many things about this book. It was a personal story. Someone really overcoming the odds placed against him. A true underdog story. The story was heart-wrenching in parts, especially when confronted with the truth about slavery in Southern Africa. I couldn't have more respect for Bok, he overcame horrific hardships and continues speaking out. I really reccomend this book!