1 comments about Mao Zedong (Life&Times).

1. Mao was a peasant farmer's son who became the ruler of China, fostering revolutionary changes which were to transform the country in one of the greatest experiments in history. His leadership and influence - which lasts into modern times - is told in a biographical sketch packed with politics and insights, and is a 'must' for any student of Chinese history.
   
   Diane C. Donovan
   California Bookwatch

5 comments about The UN Gang: A Memoir of Incompetence, Corruption, Espionage, Anti-Semitism and Islamic Extremism at the UN Secretariat.

1. In his compelling expose', the author reveals the incompetence and the criminal activities of this accursed organization as he experienced it for more than a decade from 1984. In an acerbic and humorous style, he lifts the lid on the massive waste perpetrated by the useless and often devious parasites that infest Turtle Bay and other UN offices worldwide. As such, Sanjuan provides us with a lively portrait of the nature and habits of the denizens of this reeking swamp.
   
   Waste and incompetence are the least of it, unfortunately. Drug dealing, theft, nepotism, large-scale corruption, espionage, the selling of weapons and the manufacturing of propaganda against the USA and Israel are some of the other activities observed by the author. Sanjuan mentions the names of certain individuals and the figures involved in some instances of corruption.
   
   In the 1980s, the Secretariat was dominated by Soviet spies who also completely controlled the UN library. Since the end of the Cold War the influence of Islamic extremists has increased. He suggests that attacks against Israel and the US might even have been planned at the UN. It seems plausible that UN employees helped to gather information for the attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. On 9/11, certain staff openly gloated about the atrocity.
   
   Most disturbing of all is the rampant Antisemitism that permeates the organization at all levels. Shocked by what he observed, the author made it his duty to try to combat and expose this sinister obsession of the UN. Sanjuan deals with Waldheim, Perez de Cuellar, Boutros Ghali and Kofi Annan. The Oil For Food scam is discussed in detail and it becomes clear that Annan knew more than he has acknowledged up to now.
   
   The author concludes the book with 10 proposed reforms that may bring about transparency and efficiency. Of course, nothing will come of this. This irredeemably corrupt and loathsome organization cannot be reformed. One can only hope that the American taxpayers who are funding these parasites will one day decide that enough is enough. The best outcome would be if the USA kicks the ghastly institution out of the country.
   
   For further information, I recommend Tower of Babble by Dore Gold, Inside The Asylum by Jed Babbin, Global Deception by Joseph A Klein, The Beast on the East River by Nathan Tabor, The The U.N. Exposed by Eric Shawn and Nations United: How the United Nations Undermines Israel and the West by Alex Grobman.



2. One does not have to read this book to understand that the U.N. is a corrupt, anti- American, anti- Semitic , racist organization. One only has to have followed the U.N. in its long history of hysterical anti- Israel resolutions, its obsessive focusing on one area of the world while ignoring totalitarian crimes in most of its member states to understand the moral bankruptcy of the organization.
   One of course could read other books about what Dore Gold calls in his book on the U.N. "The Tower of Babel" but Sanjuan writes as an insider who knows the bureaucracy well, and so exposes the corruption of the Secretariat.
   What is ironic is that an organization founded in the post- second World War idealism with deliberate intent of avoiding the mistakes of the feckless "League of Nations" should have turned out to be such a loser.
   Time and again when there is a crisis ( Consider the present one in 'Darfur') the U.N. either proves ineffective or negative in influence.
   Many have spoken of alternative forms of international organizations, for instance of an organization of truly democratic nations.
   Sanjuan provides a convincing body of evidence of why the UN as it is now needs to be dramatically reformed or replaced.
   Whether this will have any real effect or not, is however another matter.



3. Pretty accurate and entertaining. Especially amusing if you happen to work there and read about what you already knew happens at the UN.



4. This is a stupid ignorant book. This guy does not know anything.
   
   Do not buy this.



5. 
   I'd like to respond to some reviewer criticisms of The UN Gang.
   
   Indeed, as noted in Publisher's Weekly, Sanjuan eludes to a possible connection between the 2001 World Trade Center and Pentagon bombings and intelligence gathering at the UN while giving no evidence to support this hypothesis. But should we scoff at this as the Publisher's Weekly reviewer does? Sanjuan demonstrates in his memoir that the UN's New York offices (off limit to U. S. law enforcement) were utilized as a huge intelligence gathering post for first the Soviet Union and afterward for Russia. He also shows a UN propensity toward coddling Islamists. Lastly he notes the importance intelligence played in targeting the buildings at their most vulnerable locations. Should we not be concerned about the possibility of the UN being a haven for hostile intelligence gathering and could this not have consequences for us in the future? If Sanjuan overstates the case for a 9/11 connection, he does it to call attention to an important and neglected security issue.
   
   Another criticism worth addressing is Sanjuan's accusation of anti-Semitism regarding the transfer of the Chagall stained glass mural from the UN employee entrance. One thing that the critic above (A reader - New York City) does not address is that Sanjuan paraphrases the UN Secretary General as admonishing "that was not what the UN was about" after having the window moved from a prominent location in the employee entrance to a location in the visitor entrance. The implication is that the UN director felt the staff should not have to pass by a work of art by a Jewish artist. This is quite plausibly an instance of anti-Semitism.
   
   Other claims in the book that seem worth noting have been neglected by reviewers. For example, there are accusations against the U. S. State Department. One accusation is the toleration of a massive Soviet spy ring at the UN by spies hiding behind diplomatic and territorial immunity. Another is long standing complaisance of the State Department to anti-Semetism extending from the 1960's to its present toleration of anti-Semitism at the UN. A third is the State Department's punishing and firing a member of the UN budget oversight committee (Linda Shenwick of the ACABQ) after she exposed unbridled corruption at the UN while testifying before congress.
   
   As other reviewers have noted: the book isn't full of numbers and exhaustive research, it does not give a detailed plan for saving the UN, and the writing often embellishes events. But then it never claimed to be an academic treatise. It fulfills its claim to be a memoir of incompetence, corruption, anti-Semitism and Islamic extremism at the UN Secretariat.

5 comments about Creating Equal: My Fight Against Race Preferences.

1. Passing for Who You Really Are
   
   Ward Connerly's mixed-race background and family reality taught him the oppressive nature of forced racial classification. Millions of Americans feel as he does, but we do not have the resources to do much about it. The most politically vulnerable aspect of forced racial classification is affirmative action, which most Americans see as inherently unfair and a contradiction of the Civil Rights ideal of not using the government to enforce a racial order. For daring to challenge the falsely labeled "progressive" idea that Americans should be divided into supposedly racially pure "whites" and so-called "people of color" (supposedly all those who are not "pure white"Legal History of the Color Line: The Rise And Triumph of the One-drop RuleThe Forgotten Cause of the Civil War: A New Look at the Slavery Issue), Connerly has endured constant threats and demonization by people who presume to pass judgement on the morality of their fellow Americans.
   
   Regardless of your political preferences, any honest person should acknowledge the heroism and idealism or Ward Connerly. Our country is imposing a false system of "racial" classification on us that is as ridiculous and harmful as the "Aryan" and "non-Aryan" classifications of the Third Reich. Connerly speaks for millions of Americans who cannot speak for ourselves.



2. As a young person growing up in America, and observing that some people are looked upon with disdain, over something as simple as skin color sickens me. Even more that we as a Nation condoned such behavior as a matter of Law. I read about internment camps for Japanese Americans, during World War II, and these people were treated this way because of their Nation of origin. But very few people in internment camps were either German, or Italian. Equally our enemy, but White.
   
   Remarkably, Americans of African decent who put their lives on the line for this Nation during World War II had less rights than German POWs, our enemies. What a sad state of affairs. These people fought for someone elses freedom, and had none of their own, in their own Nation.
   
   Dr. King led this whole Nation out of the darkness that was "Jim Crow", and caused a Nation to look at itself in the mirror. At the same time there were those of the Black race who did not support, and spoke harshly of Dr. King's efforts, relating he was just a trouble maker, and that He should go home, and leave the rest of us alone. Stop stirring up trouble.
   
   Trying to make a Nation treat all of its citizens with the same dignity and respect is stirring up trouble. Forcing a Nation to live up to the principle of "One man one vote", is stirring up trouble. These were the same kinds of Black people who fought on behalf of the Confederacy during the Civil War. Mr. Connerly fits here.
   
   As a people not all Blacks, nor all Asians, nor all Latinos, or all Whites, are universal in their thoughts or soulotions to the social problems in this Nation. Some like things just as they are. Others feel the Nation can and should do more to see to it that no group is left behind. Sadly this is not the case as Mr. Connerly sees things.
   
   Mr. Connerly rails aganist Affirative Action, saying it is more of a hinderance, than a help. OK. So what do we put in its place? Some say nothing. Let the sticks fall as they may. It will work itself out in the end. Others are more aggressive, such as Mr. Connerly.
   
   Mr. Connerly makes some good points, because one shoe does not fit all. Our education system is a good case. The system stinks. Instead of trying to make the student adapt to the education system, it should be the other way around. Something Mr. Connerly misses.
   
   Even now, compair so called Suburban schools to those in the Inner City and the difference is day and night. Mr. Connerly misses these differences as well. Inner city schools are over crowded understaffed, and lack parental input for various reasons. More money is continually spent on the Suburban schools, as opposed to the Inner city schools.
   
   These are the short comings Mr. Connerly fails to take into consideration when he speaks out aganist Affirmative Action. The there are programs set aside by some Ivy League Universities, for the offspring of the Alumni, for preferential treatment when it comes to addmissions. Mr. Connerly is not up in arms about these programs.
   
   His book should say level the "Playing Field" for all, but alas ths is a plateau this Nation wants to have anything to do with, and certainly not Mr. Connerly.
   
   I am dismayed that some other so called Black leaders do not think he (Mr. Connerly) should air this dirty laundry in public. The differences between Blacks. But it is after all Mr. Connerly's right to have his say.
   
   After reading this book I found Mr. Connerly to be that which Ronald Ragan taught us to be, a Covert racist, using code words such as "Most Qualified",and requiring College Degrees for certain jobs which never required one before Affirmative Action. Had the concept of a level playing field been in place when George Bush applied for addmission to Yale, he would have been turned away. He had neither the grades, nor the work ethics for entry.
   
   So do away with Affirmative Action, and all programs designed to give one an advantage over another. Money, background, the works.



3. What a total sell out. This book is complete hogwash. Thanks to his hateful policies the number of minorities in CA campuses has gone down drastically. Diversity is very important. How can we learn about each other if we never have the experience of being around each other. What a silly little man. There is still a lot of racism against minority people in this country and his idea of a colorblind society is really unrealistic.



4. Connerly's books is part autobiography and partly a history of the modern ideological shift against racial preferences. Connerly is a black man from a very modest background who found himself leading the fight against "affirmative action." He was the driving force behind California's Prop 209 and similar initiatives. The political intrigue behind this struggle is as interesting as Connerly's life and the philosophical issues underlying the controversy. A good read. The only disappointment is that the book was written in the year 2000, and the reader is left wanting more of an update.



5. He shows us that we shouldn't receive a helping hand because of the color of our skin, but that we should work hard to acheive what we can. He shows how someone that works harder to succeed is cast to the side for someone that didn't to make it to college just for them to fail and dampen the hopes of our hardest workers. That what's so damaging about affirmative action cause it tells people that they don't have to work hard to advance but that the government will always be there to play mommy and daddy.

5 comments about Zoya's Story: An Afghan Woman's Struggle for Freedom.

1. Zoya's story begins with her childhood in the war torn country of Afghanistan as the daughter of brave and free thinking parents who tried their best to make life better for women. Unfortunately, they were murdered by Muslim fundamentalists who were trying to put the country back in the dark ages after the Russian occupation. Much to the detriment of not only women but then entire world came the infamous Taliban who's immense cruelty is shocking and who today are regaining their foothold not only in Afghanistan but Pakistan too.
   
   Today Zoya follows in her mothers footsteps and has dedicated her life to RAWA-Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan. Her life is in constant danger but despite it all she continues to live and work in the repressive and violent environment of the Middle East. For this she must be commended.



2. If you've been unable to make sense out of the conflicting regimes and wars in Afghanistan during the past 2 decades, this intimate account of one young woman's life will help put it in a human prospective. Zoya is the nom de guerre of a 23-year old Afghan woman who fled her homeland after her parents were murdered on orders of the thuggish Mujahideen.
   
   I found the first part of the book more interesting than the last, as Zoya describes her life as a lively little girl playing in the streets of Kabul and as the beloved only child of educated parents. She becomes gradually aware that her parents are involved in clandestine activities to undermine the increasingly repressive political regime. One day her father, and somewhat later, her mother simply disappear. As more women are victimised in the streets and in their own homes, Zoya and her grandmother decide to take refuge in Pakistan. There Zoya grows to adulthood and joins the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA).
   
   Zoya is involved in assisting Afghan refugees and later becomes a spokeswoman and fund-raiser for the organization. There are brief accounts of secret travels to Afghanistan to photograph Taliban activities such as the cutting off of hands. I wish Zoya had been less vague about the work of her organisation and her actual role in it, but it is apparently necessary for reasons of personal security. Considering the venomous hate-mail she & RAWA received from American supporters & former friends after 9/11, it is understandable and very sad that they cannot afford to trust anyone.



3. I read this story about Zoya, the young Afghan woman and her story of refuge in Pakistan and trips into Afghanistan. This is an OK story, although I prefer My Forbidden Face, another Afghan woman's story. Zoya's comments about the Mujalideen being as bad as the Taliban has some truth. Her resistance to these two regimes through RAWA is brave and principled. It goes to show that Afghan society is very traditional in the sense of repressing woman throughout society. The Soviet regime was probably the best in representing women in the society, but of course they were invaders and Zoya was not happy about their occupation of the country.
   
   This is a pretty basic story detailing the crimes of the Mujalideen and the Taliban. Zoya loses both parents, probably to the Mujalideen. Then she is forced to flee and her opposition to the Taliban makes up the latter part of this book.
   Hers is a difficult position. Friends in RAWA place her in a school and she becomes liberated with knowledge. She refuses to leave her countrymen and lives in a refugee camp. Her life is spent for the betterment of her countrymen, including women.
   
   I like the other book better, but this is an OK read about the difficulties faced by Afghan women.



4. Having grown up with the priviledges of living in the United States one can only imagine the devestation this amazing young woman has gone through in her short, inspiring life.
   At the tender age of 7, this courageous girl already started her early beginnings helping her mother work for RAWA (Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan). Living in a country that had been overtaken by the Russians in what they called "the puppet regime", one couldn't imagine that life could get worse in this destitute country, ravaged by war and poverty. "The bleeding wound" Gorbachav called it.
   Zoya's graphic, heroic and saddening story told with such detail brings you to a life, I would say you "could just imagine", but I can't imagine that life. orphaned at a young age, under two controlling fundamentalist Moslem regimes, life in Afghanistan only seems to grow worse. Under the control of the Taliban, you will read of the most inhumane, torturous treatment. The taking of lives. I always knew how awful the Taliban was, but I never knew from an individual's personal experience what it was REALLY like to live there.
   This incredible young woman has done so much for the woman and people of Afghanistan, helping refugees, teaching women to read and write in a country where 90% of the women are illiterate, spreading the words of freedom, where her life can be taken at any time. Zoya is a true hero and inspiration.
   There is one line in the book that I will never forget, and I believe it is how Zoya truelly loves and feels for her country. It is a line from an old Afghan folklore "I am ready to die for my love, but I want my love to be ready to die for my country." This is the passion Zoya lives with on her crusade to make life better for people in Afghanistan.



5. zoyas story is a tale of one girl whose mother was an advocate for womens rights, and she followed suit after her mothers death and after discouraging life changes. living under the taliban was a historically tragic event for all women who endured this horrific regime that ruled afghanistan without mercy or compassion for women or their rights. zoyas entire life has been uprooted and yet she has such a strong heart and mind and will not let her people suffer alone, he courage and strength is a guide to those who have equally or more suffered and lost all theyve ever had. an example to live by, a great inside look into an awful time in afghanistans history. this book will also take you into pakistan where many refugees fled, and zoya continued to be a help to many people.

2 comments about Opa Nobody (American Lives).

1. This compelling hybrid manages to be at the same time a memoir of a young activist and new mother, a meticulously researched history of a group about whom little has been written - German anti-fascists in Nazi Germany - and a richly imagined version of the author's grandfather's life. Huber expertly draws parallels between her own experiences and the lives of the grandparents she never met, while creating characters so real that I found myself in tears at the end.



2. In Opa Nobody, Sonya Huber expands the territory of the memoir by engaging in speculation of the most fruitful kind about the family history that history itself conspired to make only partially available. The result is a memoir reminiscent of novels that incorporate similar strategies, among them Philip Roth's American Pastoral and William Styron's Sophie's Choice. Lofty company, this, but it is company Huber has earned. Opa Nobody is highly recommended.

5 comments about Hitler, the War and the Pope.

1. Rychlak gives the reader the whole truth regarding the role of the Roman Catholic Church during WWII. Much can be said about this book but I draw attention only to his excellent and successsful defense of Aloysius Cardinal Stepinac. Stepinac was the Archbishop of Zagreb, Croatia during WWII and did everything in his power to save Jews and others persecuted by the Nazis. He was later tried and convicted to 16 yrs prison by Tito's regime for alleged collaboration with the nazis, but in reality he was sentenced only because he refused to seperate the catholic Church in Croatia from the vatican to form a national croatian church. Rychlak brings cold hard facts to argue his case, something cornwall and others fail to do and instead rely on post WWII communist propaganda.



2. Like most of the Pius defenses, this book is at best when it sticks to its central modest thesis- that Pius was neither a vicious anti-semite nor a supporter of Hitler. Rychlak points to some modest pronouncements against the holocaust, the help given to Italian Jews, and the lack of evidence of anti-semitism to bolster this argument and largely succeeds. Going beyond that to "we did all we could" the book fails and ignores or fails to rebut some basic arguments.
   
   1. This was a Lutheran Protestant/Catholic Holocaust. It could not have succeeded without the active (and sadly enthusiastic) participation of many Christians including Catholics. While a few helped the victims or spoke against Nazism, far, far, far more took part in identifying, imprisoning and murdering Jews.
   The butcher, the baker, and candlestick maker became Gestapo policemen, prison guards, and informants.
   2. The Pope speaks on matters of religion and his pronoucements should be obeyed. By and large German Catholics went to church, and did not divorce or engage in abortion. Why not tell them they should not imprison and kill Jews and to do so violates church doctrine. The few statements made by the Pope were general statements directed to the world, not to the faithful. What was needed was to tell German Catholics (and supporters in other countries) to stop persecuting and killing Jews and continuing the holocaust. Had the pope told the faithful to stop, the killing could clearly have been reduced. German and Polish Catholics were never told that their obedience to Nazi doctrine violated church teachings, and the concordants between the church and Fascist regimes would indicate the opposite.
   
   3. The bible teaches that those who follow Christ's law may have a share in salvation. Many German Jews converted to Catholicism, their children went to Sunday school, and they attended church as dutiful Catholics and Protestants. Yet when Hitler came, he classified these converted Catholics as Jews: dirty, stinking, filthy Jews only interested in money who had betrayed the Fatherland. These former Jews were forced to wear Jewish starts and not associated with Christians Had religious leaders said that these converted Catholics were part of the church and should be protected, this would have put Catholic doctrine against the state. Instead, in a sad state, former Jews were readily identified in Germany and elsewhere, even to the extent of Gestap going into churches and identifying former Jews with the help of congregants.
   
   4. One thesis is that the mild, quiet oppostion, not really maifesting itself until 1943, was the most effective. Could anyone really believe that. Imagine if in 1935, German stormroopers came into churches and beat up priests. Religious leaders with beards had them cut, religious items were desecrated, and nuns raped. Would Catholics say let's be quiet, don't offend anyone, hopefully this will not get out of hand. If church leaders were taken to concentration camps and killed and Catholics identified and beaten, would we likewise say, keep quiet.
   
   5. The clear conclusion is that the decision was made to jettison the Jews, partly because no one cared, part because they feared the Nazis, and part because many liked the sense of national pride and economic recovery the Nazis had achieved. Few could honestly say that keeping a low profile was the course designed to best protect the Jews.
   
   6. He fails to discuss why in countries with large Catholic populations, the scope of death was the greatest. Poland had a history of anti-semitism, and over one million Polish Jews were identified, largedly by cooperating Polish people, and those Jews, women, men, and children, were tortured, starved, and murdered at Auschwitz, with Catholic prison guards manning the concentration camp, and Catholic guards arranging the murders. To be fair it was not only Catholics, Eastern Orthodox guards, Lutheran guards, and Christians of all types, people who went to church on Sunday, celebrated Easter and Christmas, participated in the murders. They would celebrate communion on Sunday, and during the week helped apprehend, torture, and kill Jews. To call this a Catholic holocaust is inaccurate and incomplete. To call it a Christian holocaust in which Catholics played a vital role is sad but true.
   
   7. One cannot escape the fact however that Catholics participated in the Holocaust and saw no contradiction between the murder of Jews and their religious faith. Catholic religious leaders had a duty to point out this contradiction.
   
   8. To lay the entire burden upon Pope Pius is inaccurate. We should contrast the heroism of a minority who protected and sheltered Jewish victims, against the actions of the majority who took part in destroying the Jewish population of 10 countries, killing so many boys and girls, fathers and mothers, in the process.



3. Ronald J. Rychlak's "Hitler, the War, and the Pope" is a fount of unimpeachable truth. It refutes completely the venomous accusations hurled at the Catholic Church in general, and Pope Pius XII in particular, concerning the Jews. Rychlak's book is sure to infuriate the anti-Catholic media, anti-Catholic "Christians", and all life forms that exist to attack the Church of Christ.

   Indeed, unspoken yet real and critical questions are "What about Protestant America?", and "What about Protestant Germany?"

   PROTESTANT AMERICA

   How can anyone question what the militarily impotent Catholic Church did or did not to stop Hitler's extermination of the Jews, when militarily potent, Protestant America did NOTHING for so long? After all, the facts are unimpeachable, and quite sad:

   1. Hitler invaded Poland in August 1939.
   2. Two months later, in October 1939, Hitler started rounding up Jews in Poland and sending them to concentration camps.
   3. Hitler then proceeded to invade Hungary and other countries, also rounding up the Jews there and sending them to concentration camps.
   4. During 1939, 1940, and 1941, Hitler exterminated at least hundreds of thousands - if not millions - of Jews.
   5. From October 1939 to December 1941, a span of 2 years and 2 months, during which Hitler was exterminating Jews, AMERICA DID ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
   6. America in fact did not enter the war until December 1941.
   7. And, America did NOT enter the war to save or help the Jews.

   8. Rather, America entered the war solely because its naval fleet in the Pacific had been SUNK.
   9. Thus, America entered the war for reasons having NOTHING to do with the extermination of the Jews that was (and for 2 years and 2 months had been) taking place in Europe.

   Given these facts, how can anyone seriously question the actions of a militarily impotent Church without first - or at the same time - questioning the utter inaction of militarily potent America? As Stalin famously said, "How many divisions does the pope have?" None, of course. But, alas, that is irrelevant to the historically ignorant anti-Catholic.

   PROTESTANT GERMANY

   Likewise, how can anyone seriously question the actions of a Church based outside Germany, with only a minority of faithful in Germany, without first - or at the same time - questioning the actions of the majority Protestants in Germany? Once again, the facts are unimpeachable, and sad:

   1. Germany was a PROTESTANT country.
   2. Hitler was ELECTED by the German people.
   3. In his electoral victory, Hitler received a MAJORITY of the German Protestant vote.
   4. Yet, in his electoral victory, Hitler received only a MINORITY of the German Catholic vote.
   5. Thus, Hitler came to power courtesy of German PROTESTANTS.

   Given these facts, how can anyone seriously question the minority Catholic Church in Germany without first - or at the same time - questioning the majority Protestant churches in Germany? For instance, what did the German Protestant ministers, such as the Lutheran Bishops, know? And, when did they know it? And, what did they do, or not do, to stop the extermination of the Jews?

   Clearly, all these "questions" being asked of the Catholic Church and Pius XII concerning the Jews should first be asked of Protestant America and Protestant Germany. This nonsense about the Catholic Church's alleged "silence" or "inaction" is more than just factually meritless. It is utterly hypocritical, and indeed hilariously so were it not so pathetic.




4. Thoroughly researched, thoroughly reliable. Rychlak has extensive familiarity with primary sources and he sticks to the incontrovertible facts.
   Please note, in reading some reviews published here, the animosity towards Christianity expressed by several people who obviously haven't read the book. This is a subject that should be approached with a cool head, an acknowledgement of the complexity of the situation, and a willingness to be truthful and fair; Rychlak has done just fine on all counts.



5. If you are looking for a well documented historical account of the situation between the Catholic Church and the Third Reich, you will find this book goes straight to the facts, names names, times, places, and events. This book completely shuns sensationalism, has impeccible research, and refutes inferior books such as 'Hitler's Pope' by John Cornwell.

5 comments about Senator Joe McCarthy.

1. "Senator Joe McCarthy" is an account of the four years, 1950-1954, during which Sen. McCarthy held the attention of the nation and the world. Author Richard H. Rovere was serving as a correspondent covering McCarthy during the period of his national prominence.
   
   This book contains some material on McCarthy's earlier life and political career and a little about his personal life. It, for the most part, focuses on McCarthy's time as the Communist hunter in chief. Little is said about McCarthy's attractive personality and his close friendships in the Senate, particularly with Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy.
   
   This book makes the case of McCarthy as a demagogue, seeking nothing more than personal glory. He makes the case that McCarthy was misguided and that, if the Communists in government issue had not been available, McCarthy would have pursued some other issue with equal vigor. He makes the case that McCarthy was misguided in that the Communist threat was in the form of external aggression rather than internal subversion. He claims that, for all of his ranting and raving, McCarthy got no Communists out of government. He makes the claim that McCarthy's preparation was sloppy and that his evidence did not support his charges. He criticizes McCarthy's treatment of witnesses as merely being an attempt to make McCarthy look good rather than a legitimate attempt to discern the truth.
   
   Rovere does give McCarthy credit for the immense power which he wielded and the influence which he had, for better or worse. He credits McCarthy for ending the career of Gen. George C. Marshall and other, less distinguished, officials. He explains how McCarthy took the issue of recognition of Red China out of the realm of public debate. He identifies Senators who, after incurring McCarthy's wrath, were defeated for reelection and issues on which the Truman and Eisenhower administrations were terrorized into positions which they, in the absence of McCarthy, might not have taken.
   
   I began this book with the expectation of disliking it. I expected a hatchet job of Sen. McCarthy, but really did not find it. Rovere makes cases for his opinions. He does not dig into the slime of gossip to support his criticisms of McCarthy. He raises the claim that McCarthy was a homosexual, and then concludes that there is no evidence to support it. He comes down very hard on staffers Roy Cohn and David Schine, but limits McCarthy's culpability to the decisions to hire them and subsequent failure to properly supervise. First published in 1959, it lacks some of the historical perspective that more modern works may have. It makes a reference to America falling behind in the arms race with the USSR, an issue which was important in the 1960 election, but which was later shown to have been unjustified. The subsequent opening of KGB archives may place the issue of Communist infiltration of government in a different perspective. The later success of his Senate cronies, Kennedy and Nixon, may shed a different light on the McCarthy's Senate career as evaluated by his colleagues. Rovere repeatedly refers to surveys which found McCarthy to be the worst senator. The quality of his friends may give added stature to McCarthy's career.
   
   This book changed my impression of Joseph McCarthy. He portrayed McCarthy as an opportunist who fought the wrong battle at the wrong time and fought it poorly. While I am grateful for those who carried on the battle against Communism, I am forced to consider McCarthy a flawed knight who lent his words, but not his heart, to the battle. Any book that can change my impression of history has value to it.



2. Just before the American Civil War, a Southern congressman explained why Abraham Lincoln's election was a sufficient cause for secession. He said that it was not merely the election of dangerous man, which he realized was part of the political process. Abraham Lincoln, he argued, was elected because he was dangerous.

   Senator McCarthy was not elected because he was dangerous. That McCarthy came to dominate American politics for the last years of the Truman administration and the first few couple of years of the Eisenhower administration was unforeseen by anyone, least of all himself. His rise from anonymity to become among the strongest people in the Unites States, and therefore in the world, was sudden. His decline was even faster, and if McCarthy started 1954 as a major player, by January 1955 Vice President Nixon could report that he was no longer any danger to the administration.

   Richard H Rovere, a journalist and an observer of the politics, wrote in 1959 what was seen at the time as the definite account of the Senator from Wisconsin. Rovere, a master of prose, is best when making a psychological portrait of McCarthy, seeing him as an empty cynic, a vain man who believed in nothing, who hunted not for power, but for money and glory. He was a dangerous man, who turned America away from important foreign policy issues and focused on looking for spies, traitors and "bad security risks" - and, although he terrorized the government, forced conformity, and shrank American freedoms, never found any.

   Yet there is also a certain mischievous appreciation in Rovere's description. He says that McCarthy was not in the Republican San Francisco convention of 1956, and that it was duller for his absence (p. 242). His descriptions of McCarthy's manipulation of the press, the way he knew how to create a story, appreciates the ingenuity of the Senator. And if McCarthy was a cynic, who ruined people who have not sinned, he also did it without spite or malice. As Rovere has it, McCarthy never took himself seriously, even as the world did (p. 58)

   Perhaps the best insight Rovere has into McCarthy is his description of McCarthy's great innovation "The Multiple Untruth". Not a single lie or even a few, McCarthy's lies were so huge and inconsistent, that they were almost impossible to disprove. Any part of it that you knocked down would also make the rest seem the more solid. McCarthy blew so much smoke that people assumed there must have been a fire somewhere.
   
   Rovere's greatest weakness is in explaining the chronology of McCarthy, and the background. Much of it is because he wrote for people of 1959, who knew the general outline. But for people with only a very general knowledge of the 1950s, Rovere's book never quite explains things all the way through. This is especially bad in his description of the Army-McCarthy hearings. As someone who is not very familiar with the events, I emerged from that vital part only slightly more enlighted then before.

   Another failure is the journalistic defense of sources, which keeps several of the people involved disguised. It is a little annoying to have pages devoted to either an "unnamed reporter" or to an "X".

   Both failures could have been addressed by the introduction, written in 1996 by historian Arthur M Schlesinger Jr. Unfortunately, except for a few none too revealing comments on Rovere himself, Schlesinger chose to waste his introduction on a summery of the book's argument.

   If the lack of background and specifics make the book a less then perfect history of McCarthy and his time, Rovere's fantastic prose make it a most pleasurable read nonetheless.

   His discussion of the effectiveness of McCarthy's networks of informants: "If any communists [existed in the government agency], they were so well hidden that the sort of people who were in the underground [i.e. McCarthy's informants], would never find them - unless, of course, some of those in the underground were communists, which was not altogether out of the question". (pp. 197-98)

   Elsewhere, Rovere comments that "Hollywood has always been a hotbed of conformity, and advertising it always ready to ride with any hounds. By their very nature, these institutions yield before external pressure; it is, in fact their substitute for inspiration".

   Though dated, Rovere's is still a fascinating and very well written study.




3. A lot has transpired since Richard Rovere died in 1979 that makes his book outdated and irrelevant: Venona and the disintergration of the Soviet Union, for example. Both have put paid to such questions as "if there were Communists in the State Department." Arthur Herman's book "Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America's Most Hated Senator" --using the revelations and documents from the former Soviet Union-- clarified these issues once and for all. McCarthy may have been an eccentric demogogue and an alcoholic (so what makes him different from many other politicians?) but history shows that he got it essentially right. Diehard communists, progressive communist sympathizers and all those misguided souls that believed and still believe that it was a "noble" cause-- will never forgive him for getting it right.



4. Richard Rovere should consider himself a comedian. The book has so many flaws about Senator McCarthy that I can't believe Mr. Rovere can be classified as a legitimate historian.

   Declassified Soviet documents are proving that Senator Joe McCarthy was right. Biased historians like Rovere should be academically scorned for thier years of lies and distortions.




5. No one will be offended by Rovere's much-racking depiction of Joseph McCarthy. Seriously, how many people are there left in America, or anywhere around the world, still willing to stand up and smugly look you in the eye and say Joseph McCarthy was a necessary man fighting for American freedom in a time when Communists were hiding in every shadow? But the book, written in 1959, just isn't all that up-to-date. Of course much of the information we now know was suppressed at that time and J. Edgar Hoover--viciously complict in the development of all the Red Scare and blacklisting craziness--was still in power at the time of publication. Nobody would want to make an enemy of Hoover, so anything dealing with McCarthy and Hoover's contact is treaded over very lightly. This, unfortunately, makes the book somewhat inaccurate, which is a shame because so many dark secrets and shameful public deeds are recorded with a passion and an obvious intense desire to destroy the image of the drunken old demogogue. In 1959, just three years after McCarthy's death, and five years after his disgrace, this was an important book because so many people were still unsure of their opinions towards Tailgunner Joe. I imagine that this book made quite a difference as even Hoover himself took the opportunity to smear the late Senator, drawing comparisons to Krushchev's posthumous denunciation of Stalin. The book is certainly worthwhile for anyone interested in a recreation of the terror of the 1950s, written from the perspective of the 1950s, but there are several more contemporary biographies of Joseph McCarthy and, regardless of the fact that this one is likely written with more beautific prose, in a case study like this, information beats out pretty words every time.--Lance Polin

1 comments about Joschka Fischer and the Making of the Berlin Republic: An Alternative History of Postwar Germany.

1. 
   This book is an invaluable resource in the study of postwar German history. Hockenos masterfully chronicles postwar German history and uses Fischer as a vehicle to show how the left opposed American-style consumerism and militarism to create a vibrant new German democracy more in tune with their experiences and values. Eminently readable, this work should be read by both the serious scholar and the casual reader.

No comments about Downhill All The Way: An Autobiography Of The Years 1919 To 1939.

5 comments about Barn Burning Barn Building: Tales of a Political Life, From LBJ to George W. Bush and Beyond.

1. I was drawn to this book when I read in the obituaries for Lady Bird Johnson that the blurb she wrote for Barnes' book was the last thing the talented former First Lady wrote for publication and that, oddly enough, the blurb he has on the back of the book from Ann Richards was the last thing SHE wrote as well. It shows you, don't write blurbs for Ben Barnes I guess! Now I'll be waiting for the other blurbers to kick off, a new version of the internet "Death Pool," and I'll tell you, neither of them are spring chickens and one of them--Walter Cronkite--is already in the top 75 of the Death Pool list.
   
   Oh well, in any case the book is a good read, particularly for those of you who, like me, don't know much about Texas politics. Barnes was a mere boy when he was elected to the Texas Legislature, when he quickly became the pet of aging speaker Sam Rayburn, the man they called "Mr Everything," and befriended Governor John Connally and President Lyndon Johnson. Ben came from the hill country, in the days before electricity came in and changed everything, and in this book he gives us a quick glimpse of what Camelot was like for a really young man with a lot on the ball and a lot of ambition. Texas Democrats were riding high back then, but within ten years it was all to change, and this story, which of course mirrors the larger political story of the bigger US, is sobering indeed. Barnes doesn't hesitate to name names, and he blames LBJ for pushing civil rights issues so hard that he alienated the conservative element that might have given in with more grace if given more leeway. At the same time he knows that it was the right thing to do, just a path that led to unfortunate developments which the Democrats' traditional enemy found a way to exploit and overturn.
   
   At the beginning of the book, Rayburn whispers to Barnes that the significant event of the 1960 election was not that JFK won the thing, but that "Richard Nixon got hisass beat." Like a phoenix however, Nixon was to rise again and by the end of the book he had destroyed the Democratic hegemony of Texas and it has never really recovered. Barnes outlines the incredible "dirty tricks" campaign that brought him down. Strange to think that this rising young star, a young man whom LBJ said he would support "money, marbles, and chalk" became a hasbeen by the time he was 33--sort of like a rock star. He had red hair, sort of like Opie, but that crinkly kind so that in black and white newsphotos of the 1960s his head looks like it was topped with a waffle cone, the kind they sell at Carvels. He pleads with us to return our nation to the spirit of generosity and non partisanship that led to the creation of the Peace Corps. He has a whole "back to good government" program which will not please the Bush family, but so be it.



2. Ben Barnes, together with Lisa Dickey, produces a whirlwind political autobiography covering Barness twelve years in elected office. In a quick, engaging style Barnes tells of the events that inspired him to contemplate the political life, and how he, an unknown 21-year-old, defeated a popular local war hero to win a seat in the Texas house. The narrative flows in a modest, vernacular style, providing an insiders account into some of the most pivotal moments of the twentieth century. Barnes, through his roles as associate to Jim Connolly, governor of Texas, and leading member of the planning committee, reveals details of the incidents that led up to President Kennedys tragic trip to Dallas. The only other person in the room when Gov. Connolly let loose on Hubert Humphrey, he provides an inside account of the dramatic Democratic convention of 1968. Later, Barnes witnesses Connolly browbeat Pres. Nixon into resurrecting the political career of George H.W. Bush. And finally Barnes provides a first-hand account of the dirty politics of Nixon, who used all the power at his command to end his political career, defeating LBJs confident predictions that Barnes would become President.
   
   Among these historical events, Barnes provides an entertaining and eye-opening account of his political life as member of the Texas house, then Speaker, and finally as lieutenant governor. Through it all, he emphasizes his observations of what works in politics, and what doesnt. He shares his wisdom about the need of Democrats to engage business leaders to join in the efforts of creating progressive policy in response to social needs. Barnes stresses the necessity that politicians think not just of their immediate needs and projects, but to think of the peoples long-term needs and goals, and what must be done to reach them. His prime example of this is LBJ, who wounded his own Democratic party for the greater good of advancing civil rights. Finally, Barnes laments todays incivility and breakdown in communication between parties, a hostility which results in policies detrimental to our long-term, and even short-term, interest.



3. I thoroughly enjoyed this book by Ben Barnes, even as a diehard Republican and former Republican congressional aide. It is well written, concise, and tells a story that moves along quickly and keeps the reader's attention since there are no extraneous details to bog one down. The story is one of Barnes's meteoric rise through the ranks of Texas Democrat politics, after graduating fron the University of Texas, as state house member, Lieutenant Governor, and candidate for Governor - all the while serving as a sounding board and kitchen cabinet member for President Lyndon Baines Johnson and Governor John Connally. It is also the story of how the LBJ and Connally Democrat machine in Texas ultimately gave way to the John Tower/George H.W. Bush/George W. Bush/Karl Rove Republican machine. Barnes also tells the interesting story of his part in the controversial placement of George W. Bush in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War.
   
   There is very little Democrat partisan posturing, and such occurs only at the very end of the book, where I think Barnes could do a better job of admitting, reporting, and codemning (despite his experience as a target of the Richard Nixon enemies list) the politics of personal destruction that both parties have practiced. I would have also liked to see Barnes report more about the conversion of John Connally from LBJ Democrat to Richard Nixon Republican given how much time he spent with Connally as a political crony and business partner.
   
   It seems to me that Barnes tells some wise political lessons that national politicians of all stripes can learn from - keeping discourse and debate civil, reaching out to those on both flanks, building individual relationships, establishing personal trust and integrity, and choosing policies from both conservative and progressive spectrums in order to attract the broadest possible coalition - especially in an era where an undeclared war (in Iraq) threatens to undermine current Republicans much as it did the Democrats and LBJ in the 1960s.
   
   I can understand why LBJ thought and spoke so highly of Barnes, who clearly has a gift and passion for politics. His stories are fascinating and include many sagacious political observations that those interested in history and public policy can learn a lot from.



4. Damned good book about a time not too long ago, when there were gentlemen of integrity leading us; men and women who cared deeply about the future of their state and country.
   
   They walked the talk ....



5. Why would anyone read a book about a Texas politician whose political career, which never reached higher than lieutenant governor, spanned a total of twelve years from 1960 to 1972?
   First, Ben Barnes is a Texan, which means he can spin a hell of a good yarn. Second, his friendships with national political leaders during one of the most dramatic periods of political change in the nation's history put him at the center of the controversy. Third, he continues to be active in the political arena--former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle once called him the "51st Democratic Senator." And, finally, in a manner similar to that described in J. Brian Smith's John Rhodes, Man of the House, Barnes practiced the true spirit of the bipartisanship before it became just another rhetorical tool to undermine one's opponents.
   
   This is a tale of the fall of the Texas Democrats from almost complete control of the state to the status of a minor party and links that to the fall of the national Democratic party. "Where once the names Johnson, Rayburn, and Connally were synonymous with political power, the 21st century brought us Bush, Rove, and DeLay."
   
   Democrats are still asking, "'How did we get to this point?' and "Where do we go from here'?" In response, Barnes begins when Democrats ruled the roost and shows how events, large and small, created cracks in what was once thought an unshakable foundation. The value of the book is that he largely succeeds. (Ironically, many of the cracks in the Democrat's apparently invulnerable foundation seem to be appearing today in the Republican Party.)
   
   The Democratic rise to power began with Franklin Roosevelt's first presidential victory in 1932, and Texans were in power virtually everywhere--including getting one of their own, John Nance "Cactus Jack" garner, elected VP. It also didn't hurt that Texans headed eight of the major House Committees. Sam Rayburn emerged as one of the most powerful Democrats in the country, starting his run as the longest-serving Speaker of the House in 1940. When Lyndon Johnson took over the leadership of the Senate in the 1950s, it was hard to imagine how the Texas or national Republicans could ever recover.
   
   Barnes came somewhat late to the game in 1959, at 22 winning a seat in the Texas State Legislature. Born on a central Texas farm in Comanche county, he grew up thinking long hours and hard work were simply the way everyone lived. His first experience with the power of government came during the depression, when Roosevelt forced through the Rural Electrification Administration which brought electricity to the farms in rural Texas.
   
   "From then on," he writes, "I thought of government as something that helped make people's lives better." He also cites Sam Rayburn who said, "Any jackass can kick down a barn, but it takes a carpenter to build one....These days there's a lot more barn burning in politics than barn building." Barnes was determined to be a barn builder.
   
   He was brilliant, pragmatic, and, most of all, driven to succeed. "That first year I made it my goal to visit every single of the other 149 members of the house." He'd shake their hands, admit to being young and wet behind the ears, and told each how much he'd appreciate them letting him know if he screwed anything up. He asked for advice and offered help on their legislative programs.
   
   However, the Democratic dominance in Texas had long carried the seeds of its own destruction, dating back to the early 20th century and the battle over prohibition with liberals against it and conservatives--mostly from dry counties--for it. Over time, the conservatives gained the advantage by positioning themselves as pro-business as the oil, gas, aviation, and other industries flowed into the state, and, as is almost always the case, with money comes power and influence. The liberals focused more on social issues.
   
   The irony is that the same seeds that were growing into thick weeds in Texas were also affecting the national party.
   Barnes had a knack for making powerful friends, including John Connally (who as governor was riding in the car and injured when John Kennedy was assassinated,) Sam Rayburn, Lyndon Johnson, Robert Strauss, Barbara Jordan, and a host of other powerful D.C. pols. But by 1960, when there was no external enemy against whom to rally the troops, the internal dissention flared. The two factions--liberals versus moderate/conservatives--had maintained an uneasy alliance, "but absolute power is a dangerous thing."
   
   A major rift occurred in 1952 when conservative Texas Democrats suddenly found themselves more in alignment with Republicans than their own party. Then Texas Governor Allan Shivers, furious over the Truman's administration's position on mineral rights issues in the Gulf Of Mexico, started "Democrats for Eisenhower in 1952 and '56." The state twice voted for a Republican president.
   
   As the dissention continued, the potential for healing it came in 1960 with Lyndon Johnson's presidential run. It wasn't to be, and Johnson accepting the number two slot turned out to be "so divisive, in fact, that some have argued that the downfall of the Texas Democratic party can be traced to that moment." Johnson's allies as well as many others couldn't believe that he would support someone perceived as so liberal; in addition, they didn't think Kennedy had a chance of success.
   
   The Kennedy/Johnson victory didn't help, although it temporarily covered over problems as the Democrats nationally and in Texas dominated the political landscape. But the underlying issues were growing more divisive. "This was the essential mistake the Texas Democratic party made during these years....They'd start to devour each other in fits of spite, allowing the Republicans to gain vital footholds in the state," such as the election of Republican John Tower as a Texas Senator and the beginning of the exodus of Texas conservative Democrats to the enemy.
   
   Barnes' climb up the political ladder was as impressive as it is instructive. Taking bipartisanship to heart, he got along with almost everyone, although not without making a few costly mistakes along the way. He also treated every event as a learning opportunity. After the assassination of John Kennedy, a meeting with now President Johnson and Connolly, where they fought over what to do about Bobby Kennedy, "pointed up the continuing problem...of ill feeling between the liberals and moderates."
   
   The tragedy is that, even though Johnson took up Kennedy's legislative agenda--in particular, civil rights--and succeeded where the latter had failed, that did nothing to ease the intense dislike between Johnson and Bobby Kennedy and their respective camps.
   
   Soon after the 1965 Voting Rights Act was signed into law, Johnson told Barnes, "' Ben, I'm proud of these Civil Rights bills, but they're going to hurt the party in the long run'." This anecdote is just one of many that make this book so valuable: Johnson, the consummate power-hungry politician, sacrificing his party for a nobler cause.
   
   He was right. Southern conservative Democrats began a shift that eventually turned the south into a Republican stronghold, when, despite Johnson's landslide victory over Barry Goldwater in 1964, Goldwater carried five deep-south states.
   
   Throughout the `60s, Barnes gives credit to Governor Connally for holding the Texas Democrats together despite the ongoing feuds. By then Barnes was the 26-year-old Speaker of the House and supported both Johnson and Connally in their progressive agendas to build bridges between the business community and the progressive side of the party. "This is another element of the party's strength that we've lost today; we need to find and cultivate business leaders who care about more than just profit, and who'll work with us to improve the state." The same applies nationally.
   
   On March 31, 1968, Lyndon Johnson announced that he would not run for president, and that "immediately changed everything about the game, both nationwide and in Texas [which] for the first time in decades, lack a national leader in Washington." Connally had already announced he wasn't running for governor again. Texas Democrats were on the verge of meltdown. And when Bobby Kennedy was assassinated just over two months later, on June 5th, there was no national Democratic leader of his stature to take over.
   
   The Vietnam War was tearing the country apart, Martin Luther King's assassination just four days after Johnson's announcement, inflamed both blacks and whites, and the Democratic Convention in Chicago that year was a disaster for the party.
   
   Nixon's campaign created the new Republican playbook that's still in use today: "Divide and conquer, using the rawest, most emotional issues in American life as a bludgeon and wedge." While the Texas Democrats did well in the 1970 elections, they didn't know that Nixon had already targeted them. Securities and Exchange Commission investigations, illegal IRS audits, and Justice Department investigations not only took down Barnes, but, as he says, "Nixon had orchestrated the destruction of Texas Democrats." The infamous Nixon tapes verify Barnes' claim.
   
   Nationally and in Texas, the Democrats were in freefall. Connally became a Republican, partially to run for president but also because of his disgust with the '72 convention that nominated George McGovern.
   
   Barnes concludes with an analysis of the difference between Texas and the country under Republicans and Democrats, and, given what he'd gone through, one can excuse excesses such as when he says of the 1988 Bush/Dukakis race, "For the first time in American politics, a candidate ran primarily on a platform of tearing down his opponent."
   
   But he is right that, "Today, that kind of negative politicking is everywhere you look." Both sides have demonized the other, and "political discourse...has turned into little more than name-calling." As a politician with the ability to skillfully maneuver the shark-infested waters of government, he also believed that government had a responsibility to the people, and he demonstrated that over and over.
   
   "Today's politicians too often govern with an eye on the next election, rather than on the future, and the people they represent are suffering as a result."
   
   "Barn Burning, Barn Building" is an important book. In an era of cynicism and distrust, it reminds us of a time when government and politicians believed in more than their own self-aggrandizement.