2 comments about Rosa Luxemburg Speaks.

1. Rosa Luxemburg was a revolutionary born in a Poland, which had been divided up amongst Germany, Austria, and Russia. This historical accident enabled her to be a participant in the working class movement in Poland, Russia, and Germany. She was a member of Germany's massive Social Democratic Party for the bulk of her life. This collection includes writings on subjects ranging from the German socialist leadership's betrayal of its working class following, capitalism and war, why workers can and should understand economics, and the new road to social justice opened by the Russian revolution.
   
   It is no wonder that the German ruling class, anxious to hold the line against the rising tide of workers and farmers revolution, murdered this fighter in 1919.



2. This collection is worth it for the article "What is economics" alone. You'll never feel the need to plough through another tedious economics tome again. She applies her razor-sharp wit to ripping apart conventional economists' dronings. Explaining how early 19th century economists really tried to elucidate the workings of the system, she lays out how, once they'd realized that they were exposing a class system of exploitation that had no future, the whole lot just dissolved into obscurantist ramblings in order to befuddle the rest of us. Her exposé certainly makes Greenspan and his ilk look like either benighted fools or not-very-sophisticated snake oil peddlers. I loved it. No wonder I flunked Economics 101 - it didn't seem to make any sense because it doesn't. You'll never feel like a fool reading the Business section again.

No comments about Louisiana Governors: Rulers, Rascals, and Reformers.

5 comments about Committed: A Rabble-Rouser's Memoir.

1. I actually didn't know quite what to expect when I picked up this book. But I found myself laughing out loud many times. And I never laugh out loud while reading a book. Dan's PETA work is merely the background to his wild and crazy life. He's never preachy, so don't let that stop you from enjoying his crazy antics. His comic timing in his writing is impeccable, and I can't recommend this book enough.



2. If you'd like to understand PETA a bit better, this is a good book to read. I've always had some issues with PETA, even though I'm a member myself, this sort of educated me a bit.
   
   And Dan is pretty funny, which always makes a book fun to read.



3. From his early punk rocker days to carvorting with todays biggest celebrities, Dan Mathews spins a hilarious web of globe trotting adventures sprinkled with a dash a seriousness that brings light to an important subject matter; animal cruelty. From humble beginnings, success and notoriety certainly haven't changed his life long goals or sparkling personality. If you like Augusten Burroughs style of writing, grab this book and be prepared to laugh out loud. If I ever end up in a jail cell somewhere, I hope Dan is sitting next to me.



4. This book was simply fantastic! Funnier than David Sedaris, and a story that draws you in. You don't have to like PETA to love this book, by the way. My non-PETA friends are all enjoying it as much as I did. It's entertaining in its own right - a fabulous read. I honestly couldn't put it down. Highly, HIGHLY recommend it.



5. Major kudos to Dan for writing such an entertaining, honest (but not at all "in your face") and mind-shifting book about the suffering of the non-human animals that we share this planet with. I read Committed in one day. I loved it. This book proves that humor, compassion, optimism and love can change the world. If I was not a vegan before reading this book (I went vegan 5 years ago at age 37 and have never regretted it) I surely would have changed my ways after reading it.

5 comments about Churchill: Visionary. Statesman. Historian..

1. This is another of the "short" Churchill books that have become popular over the last several years and are less than full blown biographies but more than just private musings of the author. This author has an engaging style and if you've read any of his previous books on this subject it should come as no surprise that this book is for the most part a positive portrayal. The book covers the several themes stated in the title with a varying degree, (in this reader's opinion), of success. The high points include insight into Churchill's role, (and motivation), as an historian, his role with Stalin and the division of post WWII Europe and the evolution of Churchill's relationship with Eisenhower, (maybe the best chapter in the book). Considering all that has been written on Churchill this reader found some "new" perspectives and food for thought in the above. On the downside, several of the other chapters - the rehashing of Gallipoli, Churchill's "wilderness" years do not provide much detail or insight and the last chapter - a journal entry written contemporaneously describing Churchill's funeral - was little more than filler to this reader. This disparity in the writing is unfortunately one of the salient points I took away from the book. That being said, (written), this book would not be the place to start with Churchill but it is a more than an adequate supplement.



2. I read this book here in Brazil, last year.It's cheap, concise and easy to understand.There's failures in this book?Yes.
   At first, this book is biased.John Lukacs is a Churchill's fan.
   To exemple, Mr. Churchill was a deeply eugenist.This book never talks about this.Another exemple is that in 1899, Winston Churchill spoke against Islam something like this:"How dreadfull are the curses which mohammedanism slays on its votaries...No stronger retrograde force exists in the world..."
   The core of this book is to show Churchill after 1930.Even this, it fails sometimes.In chapter 4, Lukacs claims that Eisenhower was wrong about than USSR, and Churchill was right.In fact both were right.The american politics for Cold War, was basically the same, for every american president, since Truman,in 1945, to George Bush in 1991.
   Churchill also was among the men who created Iraq.Churchill also put the last Iran's Xah in power.All of these Churchill's mistakes aren't in this book.
   This is a fan's book, not an unbiased book.



3. What we have is a series of essays written about Churchill by a man who is both a highly regarded historian and a fan.
   
   The last essay, I found quite moving where he discusses his time at Churchill funeral.
   
   Yet the quality of these essays is not brilliant. In some ways they are repetitive with the same facts repeated again in another essay. Also the writer is also prone to exaggeration eg that the Germans could in June or July 1940 successfully invaded Britain.
   
   I have read much on Churchill and found this book disappointing maybe as from a historian of the quality of John Lukacs, I expected more.



4. This was my first book by Lukacs and I am not a historical scholar. I picked it up to learn more about Churchill, and where this admirable leader was coming from. If you are looking for a primer or a thorough biography of W.S., this is not the book for you. However, if you are already familiar with his background, ancestry, and accomplishments in detail, this book serves as a kind of postmortem love letter.
   
   It is certainly well-written--Lukacs is a talented writer who knows how to turn a phrase, as he exhibits in his diary entries describing Churchill's funeral. However, for all of W.S.'s greatness, Lukacs seems a doggedly loyal to the man and utterly resistant to any criticism. There is also noticeable resentment toward Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and other American officials, as the author apotheosizes Churchill above any and all other leaders during the most critical time in 20th century history. Regardless of the veracity of his position, I would recommend reading up on other perspectives to temper Lukacs' ode to Churchill's infallibility.
   
   Overall, this is a brief and awe-inspiring read: a worthy eulogy for a worthy man that sometimes sparkles in prose, sometimes fizzles in excessive reverence.



5. John Lukas clearly states at the beginning of his short book that his collection of essays is neither a biography nor a scholarly study of Winston Spencer Churchill (pg. xiii). Therefore, potential readers of Lukas' book who do not know anything about the key milestones in the life and career of Churchill should not start here. These readers can read books such as "Churchill a Life", "Churchill a Study in Greatness", "Clementine Churchill The Biography of a Marriage", "Winston and Clementine The Personal Letters of the Churchills" or "The Wit & Wisdom of Winston Churchill" to fill in the most glaring gaps in their knowledge of Churchill for that purpose.

   Lukas writes to the attention of an audience who has an unquenchable thirst to know more and more about an individual who remains a source of inspiration to many men and women who stand in the way of barbarity and illiberalism around the world.

   Although Lukas is generally sympathetic to Churchill, he is not blind to his major shortcomings: impetuosity, impatience, stubbornness and fancifulness (pg. 4, 154). Furthermore, Lukas reminds his audience in his essay "His Failures. His Critics" that Churchill had accumulated errors and mistakes that Churchill critics and detractors were attributing to his flawed character (pg. 129). For example, Churchill's futile fight against granting Dominion status to India from 1929 to 1935 was perhaps compatible with his imperialist credentials but certainly a clear blemish on his record. As a very experienced politician and knowledgeable historian at that time, Churchill should have known much better (pg. 14-15, 24, 135-136). Therefore, Lukas' collection of essays should not be construed as a shameful hagiography.

   Furthermore, Lukas reminds his audience in "Churchill's historianship" and "Churchill the visionary" that Churchill was generally cognizant of the lessons that he could draw from past events to articulate his often-visionary policies while reflecting on and shaping history on his turn (pg. 1-18, 47). Churchill was not only a spectator, but also a key actor and play writer of human comedy (pg. 102).

   Lukas also explores the ups and downs that Churchill had in his relationships with other history shapers such as Charles De Gaulle, Dwight Eisenhower, Adolf Hitler, Franklin Roosevelt and Joseph Stalin (pg. 19-20). Lukas convincingly explains that Churchill was facing an unpalatable choice between a Europe entirely ruled by Nazi Germany or half of Europe dominated by the Communists in case of allied victory (pg. 11, 27-28, 35). Churchill rightly first gave top priority to successfully fighting Hitler to death before trying in vain to stop Stalin in 1944-1945. Unlike some unimaginative people, Churchill understood right at the birth of the Soviet Union that the Bolsheviks should be stopped immediately before they grew into a gathering threat to the world. War-weary, the victors of WWI, unfortunately, gave only half-hearty support to the White Russians in their desperate fight against the Soviets (pg. 23). Once again, long-term pains were the reward for short-term gains.

   Some (American) readers will not be very pleased while reading Lukas' unflattering portrait of Eisenhower and the men around him in "Churchill and Eisenhower." As mentioned above, Churchill was definitely right to try to thwart in 1944-1945 the apparently irresistible advance of the Soviets in Central and Eastern Europe. Churchill clearly understood that geography and territory mattered, not ideology (pg. 42). For that reason, the British army met the Russians east of the entry to the Danish peninsula at the request of Churchill in 1945 (pg. 45). Unfortunately, the American leadership did not want to hear anything about it at that time (pg. 35-40, 46). Some European regions such as former East Germany and the Czech Republic should have been eventually spared the murderous and inefficient rule of the former Soviet Union (pg. 43). The Greeks should continue to be very thankful to Churchill for saving them from a communist tyranny (pg. 41, 48).

   In his famous, visionary Iron Curtain speech in 1946, Churchill expressed his concern with the murderous, inefficient embrace of Communism in the European regions under Stalin's control. American reception of this historic speech was at best lukewarm (pg. 47). Churchill knew better and was predicting at the end of 1952 that time was not on the side of Communism (pg. 48, 79).

   After the death of Stalin in 1953, Churchill, Prime Minister again, could not convince his friend Eisenhower, who in the meantime became President of the U.S.A., of finding some kind of accommodation with the new Soviet leadership (pg. 70, 73-74). Subsequent events proved that Eisenhower was right when he saw no difference after Stalin was gone (pg. 71, 77). Contrary to what Lukas thinks, Eisenhower should not be described as a leader without any vision under the nefarious influence of men such as John Foster Dulles (pg. 79-80). Many western leaders shared Eisenhower's views on this subject (pg. 81-82). The former Soviet Union was not yet in sufficient decline in the early 1950s to negotiate in a position of force with it as world leaders such as President Ronald Reagan and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher understood very well in the 1980s.

5 comments about Eisenhower: A Soldier's Life.

1. This is a very difficult book to properly evaluate. Well researched and certainly well written, it is definitely a worthwhile read for those interested in learning about Ike and his European command (ETO). However, one should take D'Este's work with a grain of salt. As a history teacher and a Vietnam veteran, I have studied WWII for the last thirty years and I just don't agree with many of his conclusions and opinions, especially his obviously pro-British attitude. Montgomery was a good general if he happened to outnumber his enemy by ten to one in men, tanks, and aircraft like he did against Rommel in N. Africa, but he wasn't a great one and he certainly wasn't a loyal subordinate. Moreover, I don't think Bradley, Hodges, and Ike were that inapt and out of their league, unless one happens to agree with the British viewpoint. Much like today's television news media, D'Este just doesn't tell the whole story, and what he does tell is rather slanted, misinterpreted, and apologetic.



2. This massive biography of Dwight Eisenhower, focusing on his life up until World War II's end (705 pages of text), is a major investment of time--but well worth it. A major strength of this work is the nuanced analysis of Ike, both his strengths and his weaknesses. He had many flaws, but he also had certain character traits that served the nation and the allies well.
   
   The author says of Eisenhower (page 5): "The path from the poverty of turn-of-the-century Abilene, Kansas, to supreme Allied commander was as improbable as it was spectacular." Eisenhower, in short, advanced far further in his military career than almost anyone could have guessed. This volume tries to explain that and to assess his work.
   
   The book is divided into several parts. The first examines the background of the family, from 1741-1909. Part II focuses on "The Accidental Soldier." Ike really had no clear career goals after high school. At the advice of family friends, he worked to get into the military. He finally was admitted to West Point. His career at West Point is outlined (not distinguished, not bad).
   
   During the years of World War I, he missed combat action. Instead, he was involved in training troops. During this time, he also became involved in the development of tanks as weapon systems. On page 137, D'Este notes that "During the rush to return soldiers to civilian life, an appeal was made to induce enough men to form the nucleus of a postwar tank corps to remain on active duty." Eisenhower was one of those.
   
   Part IV examines the interwar years and Eisenhower's role. General Fox Connor took Ike under his wing. Over this period, he became a valued staff officer. In 1933 he (page 217), ". . .commenced what would be nearly seven years as a staff officer and principal assistant to [General Douglas] MacArthur in Washington and Manila." It was not the best of times for Eisenhower, given MacArthur's and his disagreements. He returned to the United States.
   
   Part V focuses on the preparation for war, from 1940-1942. Ike's role was not to be what he desired--combat action. He was coveted for staff support. After seemingly improbable events, Eisenhower became the chief American army commander in North Africa (Part VI outlines his Mediterranean career). There were many frustrations--including working with a variety of prima donnas, from George Patton to Bernard Montgomery. Things started off dismally in North Africa for the American forces, although the troops grew with experience. Then, Sicily and the unfortunate showdown with Patton after his mistreatment of a soldier..
   
   Part VII examines the invasion of Europe and the immense toll that this took on Eisenhower. Part VIII considers the breakout from Normandy to victory.
   
   The book illustrates Ike's weaknesses--lack of command experience, poor record in a number of operations (Anzio and Arnhem, for example), having to spend much of his time trying to negotiate between different commanders with very different views and often letting politics determine the outcome (e.g., Patton versus Montgomery). On the other hand, his patience and diplomacy kept fractious generals working together.
   
   The book makes us aware of his failings--but also his successes. He was a complex person and his record is not an unalloyed success. But he may have been the right person to lead the Allied forces in the later years of World War II in Europe.
   
   All in all, a very strong biography.



3. Carlo D'Este's "Eisenhower: A Soldier's Life" is a serious tome, clocking in at 848 pp. But does size matter? In this case very little of the nearly 850 pages is at all wasted or squandered. D'Este's has contributed several significant works to the Second World War genre in his career and "Eisenhower" is not exception. While this reviewer picked up "Eisenhower" with the expressed purpose of seeing what D'Este's had to say about strategic controversies in which Ike was embroiled in NW Europe, mainly those surrounding the 'broad vs. narrow front' arguments between Ike and Monty. Unfortunately D'Este's provided little new insight into or interpretation of these topics. Fortunately, this reviewer was treated to a plethora of information as regards Ike as a man, family member, husband, soldier and commander.
   
   D'Este's breaks down his treatise into eight separate sections: I) The Eisenhowers, 1741-1909; II) The Accidental Soldier, 1910-16; III) World War I, 1917-19; IV) The Interwar Years, 1920-39; V) The United States Prepares for War, 1940-42; VI) A General's Education: The Mediterranean, 1942-43; VII) The Invasion of Europe, 1944; VIII) Crisis in Command: Normandy to the Elbe, 1944-45. As should be obvious from the title, section I discusses the familial history of Ike, and in many ways sets thee tone for the rest of the story - clearly Ike's upbringing and family 'baggage' influenced his outlook on life and war. Given what we learn about Ike and his immediate family (most notably the family lack of money and connection to allow Ike to attend college) it should not be surprising that, despite his mother's strong pacifist beliefs, that Ike chose to enter the US Armed Services in order to go to college? What was new information to this reviewer was the fact that Ike really wished to go to Annapolis rather than West Point, but attended the latter because that was the option open to him; certainly an 'accidental soldier' in more than one way! Sections III-V focus on the early military career of Ike, much of it spent in frustration at not being part of combat action, rather watching the years go by in various staff positions. What becomes clear to the reader is that these sundry of positions provided Ike with much of the necessary administrative 'schooling' that was later to pay dividends to the Allies when he took the reins as Supreme Commander. Section VI can be thought of as representing the critical turning point in Ike's illustrious career as a military commander. He got his first true taste of command of field troops and made his first set of mistakes that refined further his command style that would be employed in NW Europe (and of which he would take components to the White House). This section is also important in that it defines many of the important relationships Ike forged during the Second World War, especially those with our British allies. Sections VII and VIII represent the sections likely most familiar in content to the average WWII genre reader. Yet D'Este's provide enough flair and interpretation to these sections to make them important in their own right.
   
   "Eisenhower" is a massive piece of work that is not for the feint of heart - if long reads are not your thing "Eisenhower" will not be high on your list. If however such things are not bothersome to you and you wish to learn more about one of the most important figures of thee Second World War (a judgment made independent of whether one believes Ike was a great leader or not) this may be a book you should track down. D'Este's is a historian of some note and this work is of similar high quality as others he has penned. Recommended for the serious and curious alike. 4.5 stars.
   



4. I am a student of World War II having read scores of books on the subject and I discovered not only many interesting facts that were new to me about this man but also that his legend may be a bit larger than his life. Although I still think Eisenhower was a great leader who was probably the best man for the job of Supreme Allied Commander in the European theater, D'Este reveals him to be someone who struggled near the edge of breakdown to meet the horrendous challenges that were continually set before him. Like many acclaimed leaders of history, he seemed to be swept along by circumstances he was typically ill-equipped to handle. D'Este portrays him as an intrinsically good and moral man whose virtuous attributes may have helped him keep his job more than anything he actually did. Even the famous, though controversial, British Field Commander Bernard Montgomery genuinely liked him, although the feelings were probably not mutual.
   
   Eisenhower: A Soldier's Life recounts Eisenhower's life from birth to the end of WW II and gives insights to where and from whom he learned the things that would eventually aid him in his future life-defining role. D'Este's biography reads like a fast-paced novel and you find yourself disappointed at watching the unread side of the 700 plus pages dwindle. I highly recommend this book!



5. In 1939, Dwight Eisenhower was a field grade oficer with a career stuck essentially in neutral in the interwar U.S. Army. By 1945, Eisenhower was a five star general and commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force that liberated Western Europe and in conjunction with the Armies of the Soviet Union, brought about the final defeat of Nazi Germany. Carlo D'Este's highly readable biography describes that remarkable journey.
   
   "Eisenhower: A Soldier's Life," after a brief prologue on Eisenhower's youth, focuses entirely on Eisenhower's long career in uniform. Eisenhower's progression defies easy description. He was afforded few opportunities to command early in his career, but often excelled as a staff officer, culminating in a long tenure with Douglas MacArthur during his time as Army Chief of Staff and in the pre-war Philippines. As the Second World War approached, Eisenhower began to step through a succession of tough jobs, including time on the Army Staff, as Commander in North Africa and Sicily, and finally as Commander at SHAEF.
   
   D'Este resists drawing large conclusions about Eisenhower's success, but it seems clear from the narrative that Eisenhower was not a classic battlefield general. Instead, he was a superbly talented organizer and manager, with the strategic depth of thought to plan the defeat of Germany and the personal and political skills to get a variety of generals and politicians to work together towards that end. Eisenhower was to a significant degree the public face of that effort, and his aw shucks public personna nicely matched that requirement. Most significantly, Eisenhower enjoyed the confidence of George Marshall, the Army Chief of Staff throughout the war.
   
   D'Este's narrative brings out the high price Eisenhower paid for success, repeatedly worn to exhaustion by long hours and by the requirement to sublimate his ego to get the most of often more experienced, egotistical, and competitive officers. We see Ike as a person, missing his wife and son, spending long hours on the job consuming too much coffee and too many cigarettes, carefully juggling all his responsibilities.
   
   D'Este declines to become decisively engaged in the many controversies of Eisenhower's career in Europe, whether over the broad front approach to Germany or the decision to cede the capture of Berlin to the Russians. D'Este does bring out the difficult circumstances and competing demands under which Eisenhower make those decisions.
   
   This book is highly recommended to those interested in a highly readable book about Eisenhower's military career.

4 comments about The Faith of Condoleezza Rice.

1. Being a political aficionado, I am always intrigued about the faith (and supposed faith) of popular politicians. Condoleezza Rice is particularly intriguing because of her rising prominence, first in Bush 41's administration, and now in the second term of Bush 43's administration. In addition, she was the Provost of Stanford University when my wife Marni attended the school. I went to the rival (I mean, superior) school, the University of California at Berkeley. But even though she was in Washington, DC while I was in graduate school at Berkeley (2000-2004), Dr. Rice was a known figure among Christian circles. So when I saw Tim Challies' review of this book, it naturally perked my interest.
   
   The book is an entertaining and interesting read. It spends several chapters looking carefully at Rice's upbringing in Birmingham, Alabama, tracing her deeply Christian roots back to her grandparents (and maternal great-grandmother). A dogged perseverance seems to have marked each of her ancestors as they sought to resist slavery. Rice's father (John Wesley Rice) was a Presbyterian minister and a dedicated family man. Condoleezza was their only child, and her parents poured love, time, and money into her intellectual, musical, and athletic development. For example, Condoleezza had piano and ice skating lessons (both rarities for African American girls of that era).
   
   The future Dr. Rice experienced racial prejudice in her childhood, but her parents refused to let it get them down. While her parents were friends with civil rights leaders, it seems they themselves were not particularly involved in protests and the like. Rather, they wanted Condi to "beat the system" by being more educated and thereby more accomplished than others, and to never let her race be an excuse for failure. I was impressed by the tireless can-do attitude of her parents, and it seems to have obviously shaped Condoleezza.
   
   She began her college years majoring in music, but realized she could not compete with younger, more talented pianists. So she shifted to another passion --- international politics, and Russia in particular. Interestingly, she was mentored by Josef Korbel, a Professor at the University of Denver who was simultaneously mentoring his daughter Madeline, who later took the surname Albright by marriage. Two future female Secretaries of State mentored by the same man.
   
   A bit about Dr. Korbel: He had been an advisor to exiled Czech president Edvard Benes, who lived in London until the Nazis were defeated in WWII. Korbel then moved back to Czechoslavakia, became an Ambassador to Yugoslavia, but was forced to flee when the Communists captured the nation. He was tried and sentenced to death in absentia, but fortunately obtained asylum in the United States.
   
   Through her reputation as an expert on Russia, she eventually impressed key people in President George H.W. Bush's administration, which led to an appointment. The current President later tapped her for a more prestigious position, and in between she was the Provost of Stanford.
   
   A member of the PC-USA, Condoleezza's faith in Christ strikes me as deep, sincere, and genuine. However, the last chapter reveals a somewhat swirling manner of expressing her spiritual pilgrimage. She tends to see a dichotomy between faith and reason, as if one hinders the other. In her own words, she "needs to have a better unity of faith and reason" in her personal life, in her personal relationship with God (p. 198). I found myself wanting to send Dr. Rice the text of John Piper's excellent message on this topic from the Ligonier Conference this past March.
   
   Overall, the book is a fun, stimulating read. If you are at all interested in what has shaped Condoleezza Rice, I think you will find it worthwhile. Montgomery gives readers a fuller picture of Rice's personal history by interweaving critical historical events (e.g., in the Civil Rights Movement) with the various junctures of Rice's life. I only wish more treatment was given for how Rice came to her own political convictions, which (as I understand them) tend to be conservative on fiscal and military issues, but more moderate/liberal on social issues. For example, I would really like to know more about how Rice views affirmative action, and how she defends her pro-choice position as a Christian.



2. If you are looking for a new view on Dr. Rice this is the book to read. What an unexpected delight! It is rich in history and gives detailed information about Dr. Rice's life (including her childhood). The author interviewed most of Dr. Rice's family and friends and even got the Secretary of State to sign off on the book after reading it herself. Montgomery is carving out a niche for biographies and I will anticipate her next book with great fevor.



3. Condoleezza Rice has shown us an all business side in the world of politics. It is nice to know that the decisions she makes every day are made by a woman who's faith is of the utmost importance to her. The author has done a remarkable job bringing us the facts in a book that I couldn't lay down. I have read all of Leslie Montgomery's books and she just continues to keep me interested and wanting more.



4. It is easy to be skeptical about the faith claims of politicians. It is rare for a politician to claim to be anything other than a Christian and yet so few of them show any real evidence of the faith they profess. Of course there are undoubtedly some who rise to power that truly are genuine Christians. In The Faith of Condoleeza Rice, Leslie Montgomery shows Condoleeza Rice to be one of these.
   
   Though this is a book about a woman who has made her mark as a politician, it is not a book about politics. Rather, it is about the faith the of Condoleeza Rice and the legacy of faith that was passed down to her by her family. Growing up in a family of Presbyterians, many of whom were clergy, Rice seems to have always considered herself a believer. She was born into a remarkable family, the only child of parents who gave everything they had to give her everything she needed to be one of the most influential people in the world. As the book traces Rice's life, it also traces the history of racial tension and reconciliation in the United States. Rice was born into the geographic and chronological heart of the Civil Rights Movement. While her parents kept her largely sheltered from the strife surrounding them, she certainly did notice the world changing around her.
   
   I was intrigued by the intellectual nature of Rice's faith. While in many ways she has a simple faith and says she has never doubted the tenets of her faith, at the same time her faith has become remarkably developed in her mind as she has reflected on the Bible. The parts of the book in which the author discusses the particulars of Rice's faith, and especially those that are drawn directly from interviews with her, make for fascinating reading. While the book attempts to portray Rice as a spiritual hero I am not so sure that the author succeeds at this. She certainly appears to be a Christian, but to consider her some kind of a spiritual giant would seem to be overstating it. After all. Rice's faith, while certainly driving and motivating her, is not what she is known for. Her faith is an important part of who she is, but it is something she must necessarily keep in the background much of the time.
   
   The book moves quite quickly and, thankfully, unlike many biographies, does not dwell upon things like the books Rice has written. While they are mentioned, the author (rightly, no doubt) assumes that readers will have no interest in knowing just what Rice had to say about Germany Unified and Europe Transformed: A Study in Statecraft. It is well-written, fast-moving, and is certainly an enjoyable read.
   
   So while I would not be likely to read this book as an attempt to peer in the life of a spiritual hero, I would gladly recommend it as an interesting glimpse into the life of a woman who is extraordinarily gifted and who has not risen to a position of great responsibility and great authority despite her faith, but, it would seem, because of her faith.

5 comments about Brainless: The Lies and Lunacy of Ann Coulter.

1. I recently read Mr. Maguire's book Brainless in two days, and enjoyed it so much that I wanted to recommend it to other readers. The author makes an important point in his book: Coulter(geist) serves no other purpose than to distract people's attention from intelligent, meaningful conversation about issues affecting our country, our democracy. Sadly, some who reviewed this book missed that point, and remain fixated on partisan bickering. Even if you don't read this book, consider this: Look at what partisanship (on both "sides") has done to this country over the last several years and take warning from it!



2. Sadly, as I read the reviews of this book I realize that most of the reviewers that panned this book appear to have not even read it.It seems that their desire to uphold and defend the hate filled, closed minded, left hating ramblings of a woman whose factless rants are obviously unresearched and poorly expressed are more important than any open and honest political discourse. I suppose that at this point we can expect little more from the right than baseless accusations and character assasination of any one on the left that believes that being American means we are allowed, in fact we are expected, to speak up when we see our basic civil rights curtailed for our "own good". Apparently they think that freedom of speech only applies to those that attack and attempt ,through dishonesty, to smear any one who offers a voice of dissent. Next time I suggest that those who feel the need to defend Ann and those of her ilk continue to drink the "Kool Aid" that Rush, BillO, and a host of other "Conservative spin doctors" are willing to offer. Ann Coulter presented as a thoughtful truth seeker? Come on, they can't be buying the same crap they're trying to sell us, can they? Neither conservative nor right....



3. The author of this book is a sad little person. Why spend so much time and energy lambasting someone you hate - or reading about them, for that matter? If he had any originality or talent, he would have come up with his own set of ideas and put them together in a well thought out book. Instead, he spends pages and pages taking apart Coulter's words using his own bias - therefore, making him guilty of doing exactly what he accuses Ann of doing. This is America and everyone is entitled to his/ her own opinion. So, I guess if more books like this come out, they'll just be tributes to Ann's range of influence.



4. Occaisionally I'll purchase a book just to get another opinion. Sometimes you can get a little more insight to help you understand a subject. Not this time. This book just rant's and raves against Coulter. It contributes nothing to the subject. It was a waste of money.



5. Upfront, I have not read this book cover to cover. I work in a library, and noticed it while shelving books nearby. From the title and the unflattering, silly-looking pictures of Ann Coulter on the front and back cover, I guessed that this book was a hatchet piece. Eventually, I flipped through it, and from what I could tell, I was right. Look, though I'm a conservative Republican, I don't like Ann Coulter very much because of her style--she's rude, crude and petty. But any book that describes a woman with a certain word describing her private parts and starting with C, as Brainless does, doesn't deserve your attention. (It was in a list of insulting names for Ms. Coulter that author Joe Maguire found on the internet.)

5 comments about An Honest President: The Life And Presidencies Of Grover Cleveland.

1. H. Paul Jeffers' biography "An Honest President" of President Grover Cleveland is like getting a Diet Pepsi when you ordered a Regular Pepsi. Jeffers concedes as much in the section entitled "Notes on Sources" when he says "I did not wish to write a book that would pass what the late novelist John O'Hara called 'the heft test,' employed by people who believe a book isn't worth buying, or to be taken seriously unless it is thick and heavy in the hand." That may be true, but in the world of biography, it is difficult to write a biography if you fail the "heft test."
   
   Jeffers' biography is largely derivative of the other (larger) biographies out there on Grover Cleveland including Rexford Tugwell's Grover Cleveland, Robert McElroy's Grover Cleveland: (2 Vols) the Man and the Statesman, and Richard Welch's The Presidencies of Grover Cleveland (American Presidency Series).
   
   Jeffers' biography also suffers from interspersed comparisons to Bill Clinton. It is not that such comparisons are not necessarily warranted it is that they detract from the text. Comparisons between Clinton and Cleveland could have been accomplished in an epilogue or legacy chapter. By interspersing the comparisons throughout the text, Jeffers descends to taking potshots at Clinton.
   
   If there is anything that rescues "An Honest President" it is the narration by Raymond Todd. Todd's voice is clear and resonant. Todd provides distinct intonations to handle the multiple speakers that crop up in Jeffers' text.



2. Please keep in mind that I think three stars means "Okay" and that "okay" isn't a bad thing.
   
   I didn't know anything about Grover Cleveland. After reading this book, I found that I liked him far more than most Presidents. However, I wish that the book went into greater depth or analyzed his life a bit deeper.
   
   The author makes various comparisons between Cleveland's sexual behaviors to those of Clinton's, which is fine. But I would have liked to have had other comparisons as well.
   
   This is an interesting book and it left me wanting to know more about its subject.



3. Jeffers provides a painless background on one of the least-remembered Presidents for those who need to fill in the blank spots of their US history timelines. The writing is fluent and the narrative moves quickly. But the book is not for scholars. Important issues of the times, including the Financial Panic of 1893, the free-silver movement, Hawaii and the imperialist impulse, and the growth of organized labor are covered in a few passages or pages. I especially found the discussion of Cleveland's racial attitudes and civil rights policies insufficient; for a President governing during the implementation of Jim Crow, more than a few paragraphs about the issue were warranted. For detailed discussions of those important historical issues, the reader will have to go to more specialized sources.



4. Something is missing from this picture -- a two-time president, three-time presidential nominee and former New York governor who "never, ever" trimmed his sails for expediency, was "always" honest and consistently stuck to his convictions no matter the political cost? Not credible. To read this book one would think that Grover Cleveland was literally the second coming. The portrait is overly worshipful, completely one-sided, and ultimately unpersuasive. In particular, attempts at comparison to Bill Clinton and "Zippergate" (as the author calls it) fall totally flat and are completely gratuitous. There is little real analysis here, and too much regurgitation of what prior biographers have written.

   I don't doubt that Cleveland was a unique politician, a man well-positioned in his time to take advantage of the public's increasing distaste for the spoils system and the fractional and petty squabbles that marked the Republican party from 1868-84 (Stalwarts vs. Half Breeds, Conkling vs. Blaine, Garfield vs. Conkling, etc). The early chapters on Cleveland's meteoric rise from an obscure sheriff to mayor of Buffalo to governor of New York to president in a few short years are fairly interesting. But Cleveland the man, particularly during his two presidential terms, comes across as a wooden, cardboard figure; no real flavor or insight into his personality and character emerges. Some biographies are too heavy on psycho-babble, maybe this book could have used some of that.




5. In a quest to read a biography of every American president, I found this one of Cleveland a satisfying and easy read. Jeffers doesn't seek to make the bio an in-depth study of his personal knowledge of English vocabulaly; thus the easier read, a welcome break from the 600-pagers of some other presidents. Although over 300 pages, this biography goes fast and I didn't find myself wishing it would end. It gave the facts truthfully, thoroughly and precisely; and that's what I needed.

3 comments about My Twelve Years with John F. Kennedy.

1. I have this book Its a great book and gives you a glimps of the Man John Kennedy who was also President.Its a well rounded book giving the reader the feel of being there.



2. my twelve years is a very interesting book because
   it's the remembering of his secratary who know him.
   we can learn how he was and not only his politics.
   so read it!



3. The book was really great and I have read a lot of books on John F Kennedy. The book gave a human aspect of the campaign and the day to day life of the kennedy administration.

5 comments about The STRANGE DEATH OF VINCENT FOSTER.

1. In this book Chritopher Ruddy provides many facts about the strange death of Vincent Foster. That death is historically significant whether it was suicide or homicide,after all it's not often that someone close to a sitting president succombs to a mysterious death. Mr. Ruddy shares information from discussions with homicide detectives,medical examiners,and staff from the Starr investigations.
   
   Here are some issues that the author touches on:
   
   The gun supposedly found in Vincent Foster's hand. It was a 1913 Colt that was basically a cobbled-up "drop piece" made from combining two guns with two differing serial numbers. Most disturbing is the fact that it wasn't his gun. Add to that witness statements that claimed the gun was a different color and was a semi-automatic rather than a revolver. A lot of conflicting witness statements about something as important as the gun used in a potential suicide.
   
   The different locations of the body. Mr.Ruddy clearly and logically explains where the corpse was discovered by those first on the scene.
   
   The "crime scene" was not the place of Mr.Foster's death. The body was moved,that much is very obvious from the blood evidence! Unless of course blood can run uphill.
   
   The problematic location of his glasses and the presence of gunpowder on them.
   
   There were conflicting reports regarding Foster's briefcase,and it's likely location in the Honda car at the park.
   
   The timeline within the White House and how soon they really knew about the death. The strange Secret Service memo that stated "Vince Foster shot himself in the White House parking lot". Helen Dickey repeated that before recanting later.
   
   The search and subsequent destruction of documents from Foster's White House office. Another mystery surrounding the case.
   
   The way that White House personnel obstructed or adversely affected investigations into the death. The long-standing relationships with investigators and the poor choice of some of the participants such as Fiske and Starr.
   
   The possible motivation for having the Park Police investigate the case is explained by their less than illustrious history with crimes and coverups.
   
   While this book doesn't prove a homicide or suicide,it does prove an obvious coverup. The body was definitely moved. Did Vincent Foster committ suicide in a White House parking lot? We'll probably never know the truth about the location and cause of death.
   Christopher Ruddy has written an excellent book and I recommend it!



2. On July 20, 1993, Deputy White House Counsel Vincent W. Foster, Jr. was found dead in Fort Marcy Park, Virginia. On January 27, 1994, Christopher Ruddy became the first American journalist to write anything about the death that was both based upon actual interviews of witnesses at the park and called into question the official suicide ruling. With this book he reached another milestone. More than four years after the death he became the first person to have a serious, critical book on the Foster death published by a "mainstream" publisher.
   
   The book, like his reporting on the case, first for the New York Post and later for the Pittsburgh Tribune Review, is thick with facts that contradict the official version, a version which we have, up to now, only been given by the initial Special Prosecutor, Robert Fiske, in a sparse, double-spaced, 58-page report (We are not counting the numerous journalists, most notably James Stewart in the Simon and Schuster book, Blood Sport, who have also peddled the official suicide-from-depression story.).
   
   Here's an outline of some of the most important evidence that Ruddy reveals to us:
   
   The Body
   
   Foster was laid out as though ready for a coffin with his legs straight and his arms down by his side.
   
   He was neat and tidy. None of the gore that one would expect when a person has blown his brains out with a .38 caliber revolver was present. Only a trickle of blood was seen oozing from the nose and the corner of the mouth. No samples of skull, brain tissue, or hair were collected, or even reported seen, on the ground or vegetation. There was no large pool of blood. There was no blow-back on the barrel of the gun, his hand, or the sleeve of his shirt. His teeth were not chipped nor his mouth damaged from, as we were told, having held the pistol's barrel deep in his mouth when he fired it.
   
   None of the witnesses in the park reported seeing the large exit wound at the crown of the head that is in the autopsy report of Dr. James Beyer, a man with a record of serious mistakes on autopsies resulting in suicide rulings when murder was more likely. On his report, Dr. Beyer checked that he took X-rays and an attending policeman wrote on his report that Dr. Beyer had told him that the X-rays showed no bullet fragments in the head, yet Dr. Beyer later said, and Fiske reported, that no X-rays were taken because the machine was not working. Service records on the X-ray machine, however, belie the claim that it was not working.
   
   An emergency worker at the park has testified to having seen a small wound on the right side of the neck . Ruddy claims to have seen a photograph leaked to him from Kenneth Starr's office that shows a similar neck wound. Recently, a document was uncovered in the National Archives that indicates that medical examiner Dr. James Haut also reported seeing a neck wound. A good part of the Polaroid photographs taken of the scene have disappeared, and it has been claimed that the 35-mm photos taken by the principal police photographer were spoiled by under-exposure.
   
   The Gun
   
   Neither police nor FBI apparently ever showed the gun found in Foster's hand to immediate family members for identification. The gun was an old 1913-vintage Colt made up from parts of two or more guns. The preponderance of evidence suggests that it was not Foster's gun.
   
   The earliest witness said there was no gun in the hand when he saw the body. The next witness, a Park Policeman, also saw no gun, though he claims not to have looked very closely. One of the earliest emergency workers to arrive has given sworn expert testimony that the gun he saw was an automatic, not a revolver.
   
   No fingerprints from Foster were on the gun or the bullet shell casings.
   
   Powder markings on the webbing between thumb and forefinger of both hands indicate either that Foster held the gun in an impossibly awkward position, someone caused the markings to be there after the death, or Foster was trying to ward off a shot by grabbing the gun by the front cylinder gap.
   
   No matching bullets to the two shells (one spent) in the gun were found anywhere.
   
   The supposed fatal bullet was never found.
   
   The police ruled suicide before ever testing the gun to see if it was functional and had been fired. Originally, the Park Police gave erroneous information about the testing of the gun.
   
   The Note
   
   The note that has been liberally interpreted as a suicide note was reportedly found in a briefcase that had been emptied, searched, and inventoried in front of several investigating officials.
   
   Though torn into 28 pieces, none of Foster's fingerprints were on it.
   
   The Capitol Hill policeman to whom it was unaccountably sent for authentication is not a certified handwriting examiner, and he used only one document putatively written by Foster for comparison.
   
   A serious effort was made to keep a photocopy of the note out of the hands of the public.
   
   A trio of respected handwriting examiners, including the world's leading authenticator of literary manuscripts from Oxford University in England, has declared that the note is a forgery.
   
   Senator D'Amato's Whitewater Committee, seemingly forgetting about their subpoena power, refused to look into the authenticity question because "the family would not turn over the note."
   
   One could continue in this vein with equally strong sketches under "The Spurious `Depression'," "The Car and the Keys," "Doctored Statements and Intimidated Witnesses," "The Time of White House Notification," and several other categories, but space is limited and we would not want the reader to think that he now has no need to read the book. The book is well worth its price if only for the truly splendidly-rendered morality play described in Chapter 9 (The chapters, unfortunately, are not named; they are only numbered.). Ruddy seems to be the proverbial fly on the wall as "the hero of the story," federal attorney Miquel Rodriguez makes what looks like a serious attempt to get at the truth, grilling witnesses before the grand jury, only to be undercut at every turn by his superiors, Mark Tuohey and Kenneth Starr. Rodriguez eventually gives up and unceremoniously resigns. Properly executed, this chapter by itself would make a very powerful movie.
   
   The first thing that has to come to anyone's mind as he reads these shocking revelations is "Why haven't I heard any of this before? There is information here that would have sold newspapers by the ton and kept people glued to the TV screens. Whatever happened to the aggressive free press motivated, if not by a love of truth, at least by profit, and where are the sleuths of Watergate?" Ruddy has no answer. He doesn't even bother to ask the question. What terrible secret, incriminating to so many, must lie behind the Foster death? He also has no explanation as to why the supposed "opposition" Republicans have rolled over like trained seals. Again, he fails even to ask the question.
   
   Instead, with as powerful a case as he has, Ruddy gives up the moral high ground by choosing to have his book touted on the dust cover by William Sessions, the man who directed the FBI at the time of the Ruby Ridge and Waco outrages. The tone of the endorsement, the first thing that most readers will see, is so timid and defensive that it almost amounts to damning with faint praise: "Mr. Ruddy has carefully avoided drawing undue inferences about the death. It is legitimate to question the process employed by authorities to make their conclusions."
   
   Ruddy, seeming not to recognize the strength of his hand, echoes Sessions' tone near the book's end with a long, inadequate response to the patently spurious and insincere arguments that he has heard against his pursuing the case "not only from media colleagues, but from leading political and law-enforcement figures as well." Does he not realize that it is they, not he, who have the answering to do?
   
   Finally, I am troubled by Ruddy's omission of a number of crucial facts about the case. To cite the worst example, he does not tell us that well before his book went to the printers the witness, Patrick Knowlton, had filed suit for witness intimidation against a number of individuals working for the FBI. Rather, there is only mention in a chronology in an appendix that Knowlton "file(d) suit in federal court alleging the government violated his civil rights." From what we are told it sounds like no more than a trivial nuisance suit, but it is far more than that. After Starr had closed the case the Knowlton suit was the public's best chance of learning the truth, but Ruddy would seem to prefer that we know virtually nothing about it.
   
   The other major pressure point is with the Congress, and the Republicans there, particularly Chairman Dan Burton of the House Government Oversight and Reform Committee, once a lonesome Congressional champion of truth in the Foster case, completely escape censure by Ruddy. These omissions and others, sad to say, are more than enough to make one question Ruddy's motives. Does he, the outsider who started out at the Rupert Murdoch-owned New York tabloid and then fell to the tiny suburban Pittsburgh newspaper owned by that notable funder of conservative causes, Richard Mellon Scaife, want too badly to be accepted by the cozy, thoroughly discredited club of "media colleagues" and "leading political and law-enforcement figures?" Some things, he should recognize, are more important than that.



3. I picked up this book not knowing much about Vincent Foster, or the scandals that surrounded the Clinton's. I was younger then, and now that Hillary is running for President I thought I should know.
   
   Firstly, Ruddy should be commended for his exhaustive efforts in putting together an informative book. No doubt he has sifted through countless documents and interviews, and probably spent countless nights digesting all of it.
   
   Pretty much after the first ten pages I knew Foster did not kill himself, which left me to wonder what the remaining 300 pages would consist of. This book has a LOT of information and at times it can feel overwhelming. I thought it might have felt less so had Ruddy separated his book into chapters by points of concern or contradiction, followed by facts backing up each point. I realize this approach is difficult, for Foster's death is murky and had it been easy to discern the truth the case would be solved by now. Instead Ruddy's book goes back and forth with events discussed previously resurfacing later.
   
   One thing's for sure, you get more from Ruddy's book if you come in with some pre-knowledge of other key players: McDougals, Webster Hubbel, Craig Livingstone, Whitewater, Travelgate, even Bill and Hillary, to name a few! This book is like a piece of a puzzle that fits better when you have all the pieces. These people and cases are important and Ruddy doesn't necessarily fill you in with details, (it's a bit annoying at times, but it certainly cuts down on the length of his book). Ruddy does include a couple pages in the Appendix covering a bit about these people, as well as a few timelines that are helpful.
   
   Overall, this is no novel, it's an investigate study packed with facts and information and you'll certainly have your fill of it.



4. There are certain occurrences which come into play during the Clinton administration like so many deaths during his reign, Chinagate etc. Read this and look deeper than what is written.



5. A fascinating account of yet another bungled White House cover-up. The author is to be commended not only for writing a compelling book but also for his excellent research skills. It is obvious from reading some of the negative reader reviews that many people write reviews without reading anything but the flyleaf. Books like these only make me more grateful to be a Canadian!