5 comments about Wild Bill: The Legend and Life of William O. Douglas.

1. While I cannot comment on the factual accuracy of the book, as questioned by other reviewers, I found "Wild Bill" to be a delightful read. The book purports to be a biography, but has the ease of a novel.
   
   This is a lengthy book, but one that can be picked-up and read off-and-on, when time allows. It paints a wonderful picture of the early years and life of Justice William O. Douglas who grew up in Washington state.
   
   Whether perfectly factual or not, the book is a fun read.



2. As another reviewer has pointed out, the author is determined to debunk many of the Douglas myths. Yet this needs to be done. The 'polio' and 'WW1' veteran myths created by Douglas himself are as unsightly as they are unseemly, as was much of his personal life and relationship with others. This is not being overly negative however. This is telling the truth, and the author's sources and documentation on these scores is very good. Bill Douglas, as a person, was unquestionably an SOB to be around unless you were at least his peer. The author does present an admiring portrait of Douglas' jurisprudence, especially from the Rosenberg case forward, but this could/should have been done in much more detail. The book itself is well-written from a technical point of view, reads fast, and is (unlike too many recent publications) well-edited. I do believe, however, that this is a stepping stone book and that the definitive biography of this finest U.S. Justice has yet to be written--one with more scholarly emphasis on his jurisprudence. It will probably be a multi-volume work.



3. This book will probably stand as the definitive examination of William O. Douglas as a person. Having undertaken over a decade of research, Murphy has produced an exhaustive (though not exhausting) account of Douglas' personal life, from his boyhood in eastern Washington through his early years as a lawyer, law school professor, and New Deal administrator, to his years on the Court. While the basic details have been known for nearly a quarter century, thanks to James Simon's earlier biography of the justice, Independent journey: The life of William O. Douglas, Murphy provides many new details gleaned from his research in the Douglas papers (which were closed when Simon wrote his book) and his extensive interviews with people who knew the justice offer several illustrative anecdotes. The result is an important corrective to the idealized image Douglas constructed of himself in his many autobiographical accounts, recounting his womanizing, his politicking, and his terrible treatment of his staff with considerable thoroughness. Murphy's descriptions of Douglas's failed campaigns to become the Democratic nominee for president are particularly fascinating, and alone justify the price of the book.
   
   In his effort to debunk the Douglas myths, though, the author adopts an excessively negative interpretation of the facts. Murphy claims, for example, that contrary to Douglas's assertions he did not suffer polio as a child, yet without definitive medical evidence to the contrary, such a topic can only remain an open question at best. Murphy's charge that Douglas unjustifiably inflated his time in an officer's training unit in college into army service further demonstrates Murphy's assumption of the worst from Douglas and was subsequently refuted by other scholars, who argued that Douglas' interpretation of his service was a plausible one. Such matters call Murphy's overall judgment of the justice into question, as do the open questions that his book fails to address. If Douglas was such a jerk to his secretaries and his clerks, why did they continue to work for him? What was it about Douglas that led friends to continue to support him both personally and financially? Reading this book doesn't answer these questions, nor does it reveal (as a reviewer elsewhere has pointed out) that some of his clerks became and remained his friends - gaps which mar further Murphy's presentation of Douglas' personal life.
   
   The major problem with the book, however, lies in Murphy's episodic and superficial examination of Douglas' jurisprudence. Murphy's intriguing argument is that Douglas' initial opinions were written with an eye towards positioning the justice for a run for the presidency, yet he bases this contention on a selective examination of only a few decisions. Moreover, he offers no new philosophy behind Douglas' decisions once his hopes for the White House disappeared after the 1960 election, nor does he show the extent to which his jurisprudence - self interested or otherwise - played a role in shaping constitutional law. Many significant cases from his lengthy tenure on the Court are either barely referenced or even go completely unmentioned. Such flaws are glaring considering that it is Douglas' tenure on the Supreme Court which makes him historically significant to begin with, and ultimately diminish the contribution this book makes to the historiography of the Court.
   
   While these criticisms should not discourage people interested in Douglas from reading this enjoyable book, they should be taken into account in their assessment of Murphy's overall view of his subject. Though Wild Bill offers much new insight into the life of this fascinating man, this biography is not the last word on the justice or his impact in American constitutional history.



4. Murphy has done an excellent research and writing job to bring us the story of Justice William O. Douglas. Brilliant, misdirected, and insecure. Those three words sum up Douglas and his life and his accomplishments.



5. The author has done a good job researching the way a biographer should--he checks sources which some might find too tedious to dig out. So he has come up with information which shows that it is not wise to rely on autobiography for the facts in some csses. The legal analysis in regard to Douglas's work on the Court is not very profound, but I don't suppose most readers want the detail which a good law review would give to the very interesting work the Supreme Court did during Douglas' time on the bench. The unadmirable aspects of his personal life and character are set forth with devastating detail, though the author I think admires some of good work on the Court which his subject did. Anyone interested in the Supreme Court will find this book greatly absorbing, and anyone interested in the amazing events surrounding the selection of Truman as FDR's running mate in 1944 cannot omit reading this book--and looking at the photos! In this respect, if you have not read Choosing Truman: The Democratic Convention of 1944 by Robert H. Ferrell (read by me 17 May 2002) it might be wise to read it first, then read this book for new light on the events of July 1944. Reading this biography will be an event.

5 comments about Curzon: Imperial Statesman.

1. David Gilmour renders a balanced portrait of George Curzon, a complex imperial statesman. Curzon was born and raised as an aristocrat at a time that the British Empire was at its apex in the decades before WWI. Unlike the rest of his family, Curzon was very ambitious and determined to leave his mark in history. Gilmour makes a judicious use of Curson's writings to show us how extraordinarily well-traveled Curzon was for a man of his time. Curzon had a first-hand knowledge of many foreign issues, his undeniable specialty, unlike such luminaries as Lloyd George, A. J. Balfour, to name a few. Curzon was a work alcoholic, self-centered person who sounded condescending at times and was unable to delegate much because of his very exacting standards. Furthermore, Curzon often did not display much emotional intelligence in his relationship with others, including his own family. Unsurprisingly, Curzon's peers and superiors in politics found him regularly unbearable in Parliament, during his viceroyalty in India and as a member of different cabinets in the last decade of his life. Chirol summarized it very well when he told Hardinge that Curzon had the knack of saying the wrong thing, or even, when he says the right thing, of saying it in the wrong way, is quite extraordinary. I can recall no instance of a man whose personal unpopularity has to the same extent neutralized his immense abilities and his power of rendering great services. Gilmour shows very clearly how Curzon could be well ahead of his time in fields such as foreign policy and protection of old monuments and at the same time be so backward in such areas as women's rights and his attitude to nationalism. Overworked for most of his life, Curzon died prematurely at the age of 66. However, Curzon left some built-to-last monuments to posterity: think for instance about the impressive restoration of at one time decrepit Taj Mahal in India, the negotiation of the Lausanne Treaty that formalized the existence of Modern Turkey or Remembrance Day, a fitting tribute to the Fallen Heroes.



2. Even though I read (on Dec 26, 1976) Superior Person: A Portrait of Curzon and his Circle in late Victorian England, by Kenneth Rose, I figured that was a while ago and I could enjoy another biography of George Curzon (born 11 Jan 1859, Viceroy in India from 1899 to 1905, in Lloyd George's War Cabinet from 1916 to 1919, Foreign Secretary from 1919 to 1924, died 20 March 1925)and I am glad I decided to read it. He was a fantastic and brilliant if difficult person. The book is solidly researched, with ample footnoting, and an interesting bibliography.



3. David Gilmour has written an excellent biography of George Curzon, who, although little known to most Americans, was an important figure in English politics and government from the 1890s until the 1920s. The virtues of Gilmour's biography far outweigh its minor faults: the book is well-written and takes a balanced and comprehensive look at its subject.

   That balance is important: Curzon was by all accounts a brilliant but highly difficult man who was often haughty with subordinates and quarrelsome with his peers. Gilmour makes no excuses for Curzon's often indefensible behavior, nor does he gloss over Curzon's regrettable tendencies in this regard.

   Gilmour does a very good job overall reviewing Curzon's long life in English public affairs, starting with his career in the House of Commons, moving on to his years as Viceroy in India, then to his years in the House of Lords and then in Cabinet. Nor is Curzon's private life neglected. My sole criticism is that at times Gilmour assumes a relatively high level of background knowledge of English history and politics of the era. For example, many of the references to the passage or defeat of individual bills before Parliament were simply beyond my knowledge. For my part, that level of detail could have been omitted without interrupting the narrative flow. But although those sections were inherently less interesting to me, I still give high marks overall to this work.




4. George Curzon was born in the Victorian era with an extremely privileged family background. This excellent biography relates the multiple rises / falls in his career - I enjoyed the book because of the insightful account of the timeless contradictions of Curzon's character; he was born to an aristocratic family, yet worked incredibly hard all his life; he inspired great loyalty amongst those who worked with him, but thoughtless offense to other senior political figures contributed to missed opportunities; hopelessly out-dated on issues such as women's rights and empire, his views on foreign policy issues were well ahead of his time. David Gilmour gives a great overview of a life which started at the time of the Great Exhibition and ended just before Britain's humiliations of the Gold Standard in the 1930s. People who enjoyed Titan (Rockefeller) may well enjoy this account of a flawed but dynamically positive man.



5. Lord Curzon was a major figure in British politics at the turn of the century. Immensely accomplished as well as ambitious, he served in several of the highest postions in government, including as Foreign Secretary and Viceroy of India. It is Gilmour's achievement that he manages to convey the complexities of the man, his overweening ambition, his insecurities and also, his tremendous drive to succeed. This a greatly detailed biography, but it is at the same time also very readable. It does not bog down in the minutiae of detail, and keeps a very articulately expressed story-line going. A book of immense interest to those keen on the politics and social and cultural history of that era.

5 comments about Inside Putin's Russia: Can There Be Reform without Democracy?.

1. In my opinion Andrew Jack's book has some interesting passages, but the book seems to contain too many factual errors to get a high score.
   
   I'll restrain myself to the following example: On page 18 of the paperback edition he refers to the spy-cases of Aleksandr Nikitin and Grigory Pasko, who according to Mr. Jack were two navy journalists who reported on radioactive waste in respectively the Baltic Sea and the Pacific Ocean. They were, says Mr. Jack, "released from prison, but not technically acquitted" (and implicitly not convicted either). In this short passage there is no less than four factual errors.
   
   First, Aleksandr Nikitin was not a navy journalist, but a former nuclear engineer/submarine officer, who later was the head of the nuclear safety inspection of the Russian Ministry of Defence, a position he quit in 1992.
   
   Second, Mr. Nikitin co-wrote a report on radioactive contemination from the Russian Northern Fleet, which is based on the Kola Peninsula. Thus, his writings did not have anything to do with the Baltic Sea, but rather with the Barents Sea.
   
   Third, Mr. Nikitin was imprisoned and charged with treason through espionage in February 1996. He was released from prison in December that year, and acquitted of all charges first by the St. Petersburg City Court in December 1999, then by the Collegium of Criminal Cases of the Russian Supreme Court in April 2000, and finally by the Presidium of the Russian Supreme Court in September 2000.
   
   Mr. Pasko on the other hand was convicted for treason through espionage by the Court of the Russian Pacific Fleet in December 2001, but was released from prison after having served two thirds of his four-year's conviction (including time spent in pretrial detention) in January 2003.
   
   I hope for the sake of the book that its other sections contains a little less errors. But I am not by any means convinced.



2. 
   "[T]he best book ever about Alger Hiss." -- The Wall Street Journal
   
   "Andrew Jack has given us a vivid, sophisticated picture of Russia's political and economic culture under President Vladimir Putin. Jack offers a penetrating analysis of Putin's contradictory path as a modernizer of Russia--and of where this path might lead." -- Mark Medish, former Senior Director for Russian Affairs, U.S. National Security Council
   
   "Inside Putin's Russia provides astute and accurate observations on what Russia has become under President Putin. In a lucid and highly readable book, Jack shows devastatingly how Putin has systematically curtailed democracy in Russia, while capitalism has triumphed. No other book gives such a clear feel of Putin's Russia." -- Anders Åslund, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
   
   "Andrew Jack's work is a valuable contribution to the literature on Russia at the start of the 21st Century: intelligent, fair-minded, and enlivened by the author's experiences as a journalist in Russia, and by his meetings with some of the leading figures there." -- Anatol Lieven
   
   "An extraordinary book, packed with information and fresh insights. Part detective story, part cultural history, part psychodrama--I couldn't put it down." -- Cass Sunstein
   
   "[T]his innovative and brilliant new book...provide[s] the final unmasking of Alger Hiss, and, one hopes, put an end once and for all to the campaign waged on the traitor's behalf." -- National Review
   
   "If you accept Hiss's guilt, as most historians now do, you will profit from G. Edward White's supplementary speculations about why, after prison, that serene and charming man sacrificed his marriage, exploited a son's love and abused the trust of fervent supporters to wage a 42-year struggle for a vindication that could never be honestly gained." -- The New York Times Book Review
   
   "An intriguing portrait of an enigmatic man who stood center stage during the most electrifying moments of the Cold War." -- Library Journal
   
   "A significant contribution to a subject that continues to fascinate Americans...." -- New York Sun



3. There is a tremendous variety of titles on Russia containing much excellent writing... but after more than ten years of traveling and doing business in the CIS, I shouldn't be amazed to again find a well touted book about Russia which is just another sly rant, from just another apparently non-responsible `Journo' with an axe to grind in the guise of investigative journalism. It seems that many of the Main-Stream-Media writers obsessively demonstrate a morbid glee in mixing fact with opinion; focusing on style and challenging power with sophistry in an attempt to enroll and incite the lay reader to mis-apprehended indignation about Russia.
   
   Inside Putin's Russia is a well thought out exercise in sophistry. The author has an excellent command of allusion, half truths and negative spin. No doubt much of the data cited is attached to partial truths, but to lump Stalin's actions of long ago; the still contested Katyn forest incidents, into the same pot with the Russian culture of today is sheer mischief.
   
   I expected a well balanced, objective report of how Russia, as I have personally experienced, has pulled its socks up and is moving forward with hope and big hearts. But by the first few chapters, the opinions disguised as "facts" to slyly condemn Mr. Putin's integrity caused me to read the remaining chapters with a jaundiced eye. It seemed the author's knives were out for Russia in general and this precluded any further attempt to take his marvelous collection of musings over crumbling and gloomy buildings seriously.
   
   What promised to be an exemplary evaluation of the whole of Putin's Russia, turned out to be a narrowly focused, poorly researched letter of scorn effectively damning the hopes and successes of 140 million Russian people. Notably included were negative interviews with Russian people, but the amateurish mistake the author has made is to actually *exclude* positive interviews to balance the reader's evaluations about Putin's Russia.
   
   I am sure there are well-meaning Journalists out there who will write about Russia objectively instead of to damn it out of hand.



4. 
   
   Although it was not widely recognised at the time, the choice of Vladimir Putin as Prime Minister of Russia in 1999 appears to have marked the beginning of a transition from chaos to order in the once communist nation. The question is, in moving away from chaos, might the pendulum swing once again towards the repression of the Soviet years?. But while Western political pundits and politicians talk of a return to Stalinism, the majority of Russians appear to be unconcerned; Putin and his nationalist policies enjoy high levels of support.
   
   Despite what many commentators would have us believe, the situation in Russia is complex; fortunately, Andrew Jack's 'Inside Putin's Russia' offers help in understanding it. The book provides us with a well documented and equally well balanced account of the surprising rise of Russia's President, and of the struggle for power and control over an emerging society. Jack, a former Moscow Bureau Chief for the Financial Times, tracks the course of Putin's career, from his rather low-profile time with the KGB, to his development into a more polished and more authoritarian President whose efforts to place the country back under the control of the central government have met with mixed reviews in the West.
   
   Personal history aside, the real value of Inside Putin's Russia is that it provides us with a richly detailed description of the political context in which to judge the man and his actions. Control of the media is one key area. The Russian President has been strongly criticised for bringing independent media under state control, but as Jack points out, the Russian media has enjoyed very few, and very short, periods of independence. At the time of Putin's first presidential victory most 'independent' sources were to a large extent under the control of commercial interests, principally those of 'Oligarchs': the men who gained ownership of much of Russian state assets in exchange for financial or media support of Boris Yeltsin's presidency.
   
   The struggle for control of the television channel NTV, once owned by the Oligarch Vladimir Gusinsky, has been portrayed in Western media as a simple issue of freedom of the press, but as Jack's presentation makes obvious, there are other important aspects. Media independence is an important element in a pluralistic society,it is therefore a problem that much of the Russian media now functions as an organ of the state. However, it would be naïve to assume that the press is free where it is not under state control. The ground rules must be clearly set out, but the question is, by whom, the state or the super rich? In western liberal democracies the answer is also not as clear as we might wish while Rupert Murdoch and Silvio Berlusconi continue to increase their influence over political processes. The Russians are not the only people with problems, and it ought to be more of a concern.
   
   Putin's Russia has also come under attack as being 'undemocratic' but it would be wise to take into account that the country is not, and has no history of being, a liberal democracy. As Jack rightly points out, most of its citizens believe the role of the state to be fundamental, hence the approval of policies involving greater state control. Much of the criticism has its roots in American efforts to pre-empt any future Russian threat, and their need for continued access to increasingly important Russian oil. The campaign has, meanwhile, proved a useful vehicle for more personal agendas. As part of his own anti-Putin crusade, Boris Berezovsky is funding Human Rights groups, some of which paint the Oligarchs - particularly the now jailed Mikhail Khodorkovsky - as 'victims' of Human Rights abuses rather than the beneficiaries of a highly unethical, although technically legal, massive transfer of public funds to private pockets.
   
   The case for respecting Human Rights is more evident in Chechnya. Whether Putin has made a Faustian bargain with the military, allowing them free rein in order to concentrate on other areas, or whether he himself is directing operations, the results of the re-occupation of Chechnya and the 'dirty war' being waged there now the official conflict is over, are brutal. No matter that one unnamed Russian officer is quoted as claiming that the army is 'only' responsible for 50% of disappearances. It remains to be seen if the situation can be changed and the army curbed. For the military, the occupation now appears to have become, as Jack puts it, 'its own raison d'etre', while the roots of the 'Chechen Problem' itself go back beyond the first war of 1994-6, beyond even the chaos and corruption that invaded the region after the collapse of the USSR.
   
   Inside Putin's Russia manages to find a way through the Chechen minefield without veering too much to one side or another. It is to Andrew Jack's credit that he does not lend himself to simplistic analyses and presents information on which we can form an opinion. That does not mean that the tangle of characters and vested interests is always easy to follow, but Jack can hardly be blamed for that, and he has taken the trouble to provide a helpful Dramatis Persona.
   
   As for Putin's legacy, in many respects he deserves credit for curbing the excesses of the Yeltsin period and bringing financial resources back under state control. But the Russian President has questions to answer, in particular over Chechnya, and in his quest for order he may have, or may be tempted to go too far. Overall, Jack is probably correct when he states: "He (Putin) is unlikely to go down in history as a great transformational leader. But he may yet be viewed as playing an essential role of cohesion, stability and predictability - in domestic and even international affairs". After the roller coaster ride of the Yeltsin years, that will be no small achievement.
   
   Gerard Coffey is European Correspondent of the South American journal, Tintaji.



5. Andrew Jack is Moscow bureau chief of the Financial Times, which is a pro-Big business UK paper. The paper hasn't been particularly focused or interested in Russia, except occasion critical outbursts of FT columnist Quentin Peel. The author is one of the whole crew of young Anglo-American correspondents who felt compelled to write a book after several years in Russia. The sweep of the book is broad - it is the Russia's business elite, GULAG, transitional economy, KGB, communism, city of Moscow, Russian political system, and Chechnya. It is impressive for anyone to cover all these topics in one swift stroke, but inevitably questions arise about a depth of such a book and its usefulness in predicting the Russia's future. The book didn't impress me very much on either of these counts. The author, who is essentially an investigative reporter, has undeniable strengths, which are in his knowledge of details: a date, a name, an event, some important personal detail. But a solid big picture unfortunately is not among them. The book is filled with little nuggets of information about Russia, Russian `oligarchs', and politicians, but I don't think it has a real depth, nor I am convinced that the book offers an objective portrait of `Putin's Russia'. In the book Russia is portrayed essentially as an imperfect, if not unsuccessful, disciple of laissez-faire capitalism practiced by US and UK. Also, the author does not appear to be as peeved as Marquise De Custine, but comes close sometimes.
   
   Jack writes in crisp, short sentences. He is obviously familiar with Russian language and throws lots of names around, but his anglicizing of Russian names is annoying. For example, on page 37 he mentioned `Old' Square in Moscow. In Russian language it is `Staraya' Square. With the same success one could call the Kremlin `the Tower'.
   Many pages are filled with author's personal `disappointments' in Russia from his description of unsuccessful attempts to buy fresh lattice to his accounts of agonizing encounters with Russian traffic police - the feared GAI. A lot of it appears to be a natural frustration of a foreigner, who is just trying to figure out what makes the Russians tick.
   
   The most important weakness of this book is its failure to examine Russia on its own terms, not to try to fit it into `the bed of Procrustes' of Anglo-American model, code of behavior, and virtues of US-style market democracy. Of course, Jack is right then saying that Putin's priority is modernization of Russia, not building a `democracy that bears more than a superficial resemblance to the variance recognizable in the west.'
   But the author's attitude, as shown in his choice of words, is quite wrong. Looking at the examples of countries like Japan and Singapore, how could one say that the Anglo-Saxon way of market democracy is the only way to achieve prosperity and modernization? Why, if fact, it should be desirable in Russia?
   
   The massage of the book is pedestrian `Russia in 2008 is likely to be a country in better shape than some now fear, but not as impressive as it might have been had Putin used his potential to the full' (page 339).
   The tone of patronizing superiority notwithstanding, one doesn't have to go through 350 pages to figure that out. I was impressed with his exercise in semantics when he called Russia a country, which `is shifting from anarchic liberalism towards liberal authoritarianism', but it really explains nothing. `Liberal' means different things to different people. In Russia `Young liberals' is a contemptuous name (even a swearing word) for a group of reformers who carried out `the shock therapy' of the early nineties. Incidentally, these `young liberals' have had little to do with liberalism, but were adherents of rightist Thatcherism, standing for massive privatization, withdrawal of price control, trickle-down economics, and general free-market fundamentalism.
   
   What is particularly puzzling is Jack's failure to notice a most striking feature of Kremlin's policies. It is not Putin's connection to KGB, which makes him noteworthy, but his Russian version of Gaullism. Like De Gaulle, Putin is a nationalistic, populist leader, insistent on a strong presidency, and determent to actively encourage a `multi-polar' world, in order to check US dominance. All these have clear earmarks of French Gaullism a la Russe, and, incidentally, and not surprisingly France has been the closest Russian ally in the world. Mr. Jack who was stationed in Paris before Moscow didn't seem to bother to make a connection.

2 comments about Rove Exposed: How Bush's Brain Fooled America.

1. Others have described Rove as "grooming Bush" (vs. a subordinate), shaping policy based on politics, co-president, and manager of a never-ending Bush campaign. However, Moore does not make it clear whether Bush is primarily following political advice to determine policy, or using political advice to implement desired policy - I suspect it is both.
   
   One of Rove's favorite models is Mark Hanna, businessman and counsel to President McKinley. Hanna resisted government efforts to break up giant corporate and mining trusts, thereby providing them with the ability to control labor and wages, while raising a very large amount (for those days) to elect McKinley. Not surprising, Bush (Rove?) has followed an analogous path, supporting business at almost every turn, while raising very large amounts for his campaigns. However, Bush (Rove?) did bend his devotion to free trade (NAFTA, CAFTA) to provide steel tariffs in an effort to boost voter support in W. Virginia and Pennsylvania.
   
   Moore also traces Rove's history of dirty tricks - including bugging his own office to boost his Republican client for governor (battery only had 10-hour life, was fresh when discovered, there was no evidence of a break-in, and Rove had shortly before seen a similar tactic used in a movie), working with an FBI henchman (later shown to have planted evidence in the Ruby Ridge murder trial) to pursue political enemies, having surrogates attack Gov. Anne Richards, Sen. John McCain, and Sen. John Kerry with vicious whisper campaigns (respectively - lesbian, fathering a black child and mentally unbalanced, and not the brave hero he appeared to be).
   
   Another interesting incident involved Rove campaigning for Chair of the College Republicans. Through "aggressive methods" (challenging as many opponent electors as possible through the flimsiest of reasons), the election became a tie that was appealed to George Bush ('41) when he was Chair of the Republican Party. Bush chose Rove based on his anger at Rove's opponent's exposing Rove's teaching of dirty tricks, then later asked Rove to help '43. (Loyalty over all - doesn't say much for Bush '41 either.)
   
   Finally, Moore suggests that Rove supported a strategy of expanding the War on Terror to Iraq, as Osama was not being caught and Iraq would provide a more attractive conventional opportunity. The Democrats then ended up between a rock and a hard place, per Rove's machinations - pressure for the Iraq resolution was intense as the War on Terror had already been declared, and the situation was acerbated by Bush's claim that "the greater the threat, the greater the risk of inaction" - setting up a scenario where searching for facts was viewed as counterproductive. In addition, talk against Iraq would have looked silly if it had been known that North Korea already had the bomb - so the White House (Rove?) kept this information under wraps for 12 days until after passage of the Iraq resolution.



2. Since I didn't read Bush's Brain, most of the material in this book was new to me, and fascinating. Ironically, the book made my impression of Rove somewhat more sympathetic than before: the "Revenge of the Nerd" theme resonated a bit, and I found myself thinking "Why can't the Democrats get more guys like this?". That this thought crossed my mind is a symptom of the sorry state that politics has reached in this country.

5 comments about Life and Death in Shanghai.

1. Nien Cheng is quite the lady with some experience to tell. Growing up in China as part of the wealthy class, her life changed all of a sudden as the Great Cultural Revolution came down her street.... It's a chilling story of a mob mentality that pretends to "purify" society of evils of the day. It's a sobering story that unveils and condemns the horrors of communism. Required read.



2. Nein Cheng lived a comfortable middle class existance...in Shanghai during the height of the Cultural Revolution. Big mistake. Her comfortable lifestyle and connections to the West (via Shell Oil, her former employer) make her a target of the Red Brigade. Imagine if you will, waking up one morning to find a bunch of politically jacked up teenagers suddenly given the freedom to ransack your home, determine whether or not you are a danger to society, and beat you, arrest you, humiliate you and arrest you. Ms. Cheng is imprisoned and everything she has is taken away...rare works of art, priceless porcelains. This irreplacable beauty is, for the most part, destroyed by the loutish thugs -- the 14 and 15 year olds who ran amok, brandishing their political clout -- who made up the bulk of the Mao Cult that was the Red Brigade. Cheng is arrested and sent to a hellacious prison. Beaten, starved, subjected to brutal interrogation, Chen is indomitable. She does not confess, she does not kowtow, she sticks to her guns and even dares to lecture her captors and, in the process, drive them crazy. She lives this nightmare year after year, never budging from her declaration of innocence, never seeing or hearing from her beloved daughter. But no matter what they do to her, Cheng does not give in. Give in? She doesn't give an inch. We learn, though her, fascinating lessons in the political subtlties that fomented chaos and laws during this period. Through hints and reading between the lines of the official propoganda that the prisoners were forced to listen to, she pieces together much of the political climate and events. Her tenacity, stubborn contrariness and refusal to make any concessions to her captors is inspirational, astounding and, frankly, almost unbelievable. Even when the political climate changes and she is given her release, she insists that the prison "confess" its error. This is not a lady to trifle with. Upon her release, she immediately begins to search for her daughter, and for the restoration of whatever of her property has survived the Red Guard. The second half of the book -- Ms. Cheng's "rehabilitation" is as compelling as the first part. It's a book that is impossible to put down and certainly the best of a spate of first-hand accounts of this horrible "Through the Looking Glass" period of China's history. Nien Cheng is one hell of a tough lady, her book is moving, thought-provoking and compelling.



3. Nien Chang's account of her encounter with the Cultural Revolution is the best book of this kind that I recall. Many others have written about their experiences, some in memoir form, others in fictionalized form. NC's is the most accessible to the Western reader, she can relate to our expectations better than some of the others, and she writes more specifically for a Western audience. Her personal background made that easier for her than for many others, she had this working history with a large foreign corporation (no product placements in my reviews!).
   The sad fact is that the subject interests non-Chinese or 'Overseas Chinese' substantially more than the population of the People's Republic. Books like NC's are often talked down because they are successfull in the West. That fact seems to be a negative mark. This applies also to Jun Chang's Wild Swans, while her later bio of the great helmsman is taboo.
   The desire to forget about the past is so overwhelming, that many shut their eyes and minds to the recent past. (Actually not that recent any more.) With this strong wish to close the chapter, and in a situation of overwhelming success and progress for the country as a whole, the ruling elites find it very easy to put the Cultural Revolution into a kind of frozen state of taboo: it is not denied, but it is not visited with the purpose of understanding and digesting it. The man who provoked it is sacrosanct, he can not be touched by criticism. The negative things are assigned to others, like the Gang of Four.
   (Who was it who wrote here recently that history does not change?)



4. This book is a good Focused Look at Detainment in Cultural Revolution. Most of the book is told while she is in a detainment camp (not prison, she never actually was sentenced to anything). Basically, all her problems were owing to the leftists in the communist party lead by Jiang Qin and the gang of four, who wanted to elicit a confession from her that she was a spy, which in turn would have to the downfall of several of their political opponents (zhou enlai if i am not mistaken). I most admire her persistence in never admitting fault even after 6 years and some mild torture. It reminds me a lot of Joseph Smith who persisted in claiming that he had spoken with God in person, even when many many people called him a liar or a false prophet. I have always admired those who are true to themselves and don't give into the social pressure to change just because they face persecution.



5. Nien Cheng's admirable book, with its lucid and objective account of her dreadful ordeal during the Cultural Revolution, deserves to be widely read. This brutal and destructive period of Chinese history began more than forty years ago, but many of its tormenters and their victims are still alive; people like the "militant female guard," who makes Cheng's life so miserable, must be senior citizens today, watching, or even participating in, the victory of the "capitalist-roaders." Other readers have already bestowed every form of praise on "Life and Death in Shanghai," so I'll merely offer this additional insight. To more fully understand the scope of the Cultural Revolution, I think it's useful to read other accounts of it as well. Cheng's account is from the perspective of a well-born, highly educated, affluent woman, one who chose, with her husband, to return to Shanghai in 1949 because they felt that the Communists had the capacity to reform and restructure Chinese society. In short, they were patriots. An interesting and very different perspective is presented in Anchee Min's "Red Azalea," as it is the account of a young woman whose family has little money and no connections. As a result, she is buffeted by forces she often cannot control, and she grasps at opportunities for release from the collective farm and for an education as if she were being swept down a powerful river, occasionally grasping at a branch that pulls her out of the current. Then there is Jung Chang's "Wild Swans," which is quite different. To my mind, the most interesting story in her memoir is that of her parents, true believers in the communist revolution. Their gradual fall and bitter disillusionment is the central story of "Wild Swans." Read "Life and Death in Shanghai," then read the others, and you'll gain a complex and complicated picture of life during the Cultural Revolution.

5 comments about Wild Man : The Life and Times of Daniel Ellsberg.

1. Daniel Ellsberg risked 125 years in prison for leaking the Pentagon papers. As a psychiatrist, I can tell you that narcissists never put themselves in that much risk.



2. Wells(W) has written a biography that places an undo emphasis on certain minor aspects of Ellsberg's life,including unwarranted moral judgments that appear to be hypocritical, while completely ignoring certain major accomplishments of Ellsberg for which he has never received his just acclaim(and has never sought acclaim)First,W appears to be fixated on the fact that Ellsberg had sexual relationships with a number of different women.For just a few examples,George Washington,Benjamin Franklin,Thomas Jefferson,Napoleon,Douglas MacArthur,Dwight D.Eisenhower,and Martin Luther King also had sexual relationships with a number of different women.The emphasis that W places on this fact is incredibly overblown.Am I supposed to stop reading J M Keynes's General Theory and A Treatise on Probability because Keynes's sexual orientation before 1922 was primarily Gay?The conclusion I draw is that W either sought to embarrass Ellsberg and/or wanted to add irrelevant material that might sell more copies of his book.Second,the discussions of Ellsberg's contributions to decision making do not recognize that Ellsberg is the Father of modern decision theory.It is a practical certainty that had Ellsberg's 1962 dissertation been published in the 1960's, instead of in 2001,he would have already received a Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science.Chapter 7 of"Risk,Ambiguity,and Decision"(2001;Garland Publishing Com.)supplies a complete modern decision theoretic foundation for Keynes's major General Theory analysis that uncertainty(Ellsberg's ambiguity)is THE cause of involuntary unemployment and insufficient long run investment.The problem here is that Ellsberg has remained far too quite for over 40 years on what he accomplished.One can only hope that Ellsberg will decide to "toot his own horn" a lot more vigorously in the future.Any reader of W's book should automatically buy a copy of Ellsberg's "Secrets" book if one desires an accurate biography that concentrates on the important things.



3. While I found this absorbing and thoughtfully written biography of Vietnam anti-war activist Daniel Ellsberg to be a bit overblown and pretentious at times, it is a masterfully written exploration of a complex and puzzling man, and provides the reader with a far-reaching biographical portrait that both neatly complements as well as providing a foil for Ellsberg's own recent autobiographical efforts in the best-selling work "Secrets". While "Secrets" concentrates first and foremost on the period of his life leading up to and including the debacle over the illicit release of the top-secret Pentagon papers to the press, Well's biography, "Wild Man" gives us a much more fully developed, balanced, and for the most part more objective look at the mercurial, narcissistic, and stunningly brilliant Ellsberg's life.

   Ellsberg's direction in life was aggressively forged in the crucible of his aggressive and domineering mother's ambitions for him, such that he rose by dint of ability and hard effort to the heights of academic success early, graduating with a PhD in Economics from Harvard in the pre-Vietnam war era. Yet Ellsberg often did the unexpected, especially given his pedigree as an ambitious young Jewish-American intellectual; after college he volunteered for the Marine Corps, and served as an officer before going on to graduate school. After graduating from Harvard, he soon found himself recruited for the Rand Corporation, an elite Defense-Department funded think-tank and private preserve for intellectuals useful for the DOD bureaucracy. Sure enough, Ellsberg's controversial ideas and thoughtful repose gained him notice and a post within the government working for a highly placed Pentagon undersecretary.

   This position placed him in the catbird seat in terms of his access to the opening sequences and related bureaucratic responses to the expanding conflict in Vietnam. Even as he lent his support to the Pentagon, Ellsberg became concerned about the use of body counts and other quantitative measures being employed as key indicators of our military situation and progress being made. Criticisms of the methodology fell on deaf ears however, and Ellsberg found himself more isolated and less influential than he had hoped he would be. Instead, he argued for a long and detailed survey "on the ground" in Vietnam, which he would volunteer to accomplish for himself, and which he felt confident would give a better, more accurate and realistic appraisal of American forces in the region. Over a eighteen month period, Ellsberg became convinced the war was being conducted all wrong, that the employment of such metrics as body counts, bomb tonnage, and areas secured were catastrophically misleading at best and profoundly delusional at worst.

   The rest, as they say, was history, and it is useful to have both Ellsberg's recollections as well as those of an independent biographer in detailing just how and why all that cam e to transpire did so, for the devil is in the details of the historical record. At the same time, I was a bit offended by Well's recurring tale-spinning in terms of providing the reader with salacious material about Ellsberg's peripatetic and admittedly insistent womanizing. While there is no doubt that Ellsberg is no saint, I still fail to see why Wells felt it was so important to stress Ellsberg's ego excesses, his romantic escapades, or his apparent inability to stay the course on any particular intellectual path long enough to make a career of it has to do with his heart-wrenching decision to expose himself to a possible life behind bars in order to provide the American people with what he felt was critical information they had a right to know. Still, this is fascinating material, and any self-respecting sidewalk psychoanalyst like you and I are likely to enjoy a lot of his thoughtful ruminations about Ellsberg even as we know they are largely irrelevant to what happened and why. This is a worthwhile if somewhat flawed book. Enjoy!




4. Daniel Ellsberg's profession at RAND in Santa Monica was the creation of mathematical models of conflict situations - wars, face-offs, threats of war, crises - the daily business of the cold war. He is said to have done this work brilliantly. He was expert at game theory.

   He was unusual, probably unique among defense theorists, in that he stood up from his computer terminal, turned aside from his theoretical models of the war and went to war himself, personally, with a rifle. It comes through that Ellsberg was a bit of an enthusiast -- a war lover. Strangely, the Viet Nam chapters are the only chapters in the book where the character and the story really come alive.

   But Ellsberg returned from Viet Nam depressed and disgusted. He ultimately copied and released to the press The Pentagon Papers, the classified historical account of US policy in Viet Nam.

   Very few people actually read the Pentagon Papers. Tom Wicker of the New York Times read into it and was struck and evidently quite shocked by the idea that a war could be discussed as though it were a rational game. He did not know, and most people still don't know, the extent to which US cold war policy, our grand strategy, had been subsumed into John von Neumann's mathematical descriptions of parlour games.

   Daniel Ellsberg's biography should have had something to say about his profession, about game theory, about the awkward, perhaps ridiculous overlay of a mathematical theory on a shooting war in the jungle. Ellsberg was deeply inside this business, a RAND superstar, and in the end he became disillusioned and quite talkative about it.

   The author of this biography completely missed this whole astonishing backstory. He simply left out Ellsberg's professional life, his strange and remarkable line of work as a war gamer.

   What we have here instead is a relentlessly hostile, tut-tut-tutting 604-page description of Ellsberg's personal life: his childhood, his hard pushing mom, his social activities, his water cooler conversations, and his dates and his nights. What are we supposed to do with this kind of information?

   If you are still wondering why we were in Viet Nam, and who isn't, there exist some much better and livelier books to read: A great introduction to the RAND era and story is "The Wizards of Armageddon," by Kaplan. It was recently re-published in paperback. Prisoner's Dilemma by Poundstone is an excellent book on Von Neumann and the Game Theory. Another book on the subject is, of course, "The Pentagon Papers." Ellsberg's autobiography, which is soon to be published, may also prove helpful.

   This biography, "Wild Man" does contain, by the way, some interesting historical facts. For example, the author observes that RAND maintained a French colonial villa in Saigon. We are left to wonder what the heck went on in there - that is, what their game was. The author doesn't seem to have a clue that it mattered.




5. Having to practice the piano as a kid seems to me such a great start for the life of an intellectual, that even the beginning of this book made sense to me. I can relate to most of the character features of this book in an intellectual way, also. It is reported on page 573 that "Ellsberg was invited by undergraduates to teach a student-sponsored course on `nuclear weapons and foreign policy'at Stanford in 1979." As a lesson in reality, student interest dwindled rapidly when students discovered "that Ellsberg `relied too much on his memory of what he personally was involved in. . . . It may not have been well organized." More in line with the way everybody is thinking about these things, Harvard Medical School arranged for Ellsberg to teach a course under a center John Mack "had set up called the Center for Psychological Studies in the Nuclear Age." (p. 573). This approaches the field of philosophy in allowing the students to think that they are directly engaging in a study of the thoughts of their professor.

   I have owned WILD MAN / THE LIFE AND TIMES OF DANIEL ELLSBERG for a year, and appreciated the information about his Harvard years the most. He certainly had more fun at Harvard than I ever had. Photograph number 5, showing "Daniel and Carol Ellsberg holding the purloined ibis at Harvard" shows how readily the students who wrote the "Crimson" could make the news in their paper whatever they wanted it to be, including his line, "It is absurd to maintain that a copper bird could have arranged a series of audiences with notables, or eluded pursuers unaided." (p. 89). Ultimately, news in this country became about what the students at Harvard thought it was. I'm afraid the failure which WILD MAN frequently expresses about the life of Daniel Ellsberg relate to the character of our political system as much as to anything that Daniel Ellsberg might have done.

   For a few months, I have been reading SAKHAROV / A BIOGRAPHY by Richard Lourie, and I noticed that Daniel Ellsberg was mentioned on page 360 of that book, as someone that Sakharov saw after seven years in which he had seen no one. Sakharov is not mentioned in WILD MAN, not even in the list of people who Tom Wells would give more credit to than Daniel Ellsberg for accomplishing something in the control of nuclear weapons. Politically, it was always felt that Daniel Ellsberg's contributions were "not going to be any kind of dynamite," (p. 351), but Ellsberg himself seemed "nervous and worried. . . . He spoke fast and made jerky movements. He seemed to be a harried man." (p. 351). Sakharov had the advantage of dealing with a political system which could see the need for a change, when he could deal with a leader, Gorbachev, who sincerely needed to find ways to change things for the better. Daniel Ellsberg is already in a system in which change is such a constant that almost anyone in the system could be the anonymous source who told Tom Wells, "I mean, he doesn't even begin to pretend to be interested in me anymore." (p. 604).

1 comments about Farewell to Spandau.

1. An honest, factual account of Tony Le Tissier's time as British Governor of Spandau Prison during the final years. The author writes with precision and humour. Very interesting and should be read by anyone who was connected in any way. A wonderful memoire.

5 comments about The Senator: My Ten Years with Ted Kennedy.

1. Having been a die hard Kennedy fan all of my life, I've read a lot of books. I know that none of them are perfect and I enjoyed this book. Ted Kennedy certainly lived life to the excess, but I guess that was the times. This book is full of examples of a very human man who works to do great things for the American people.



2. I am a die hard Kennedy fan and this is one of my favorite Kennedy books to date; however, you will appreciate it more if you have a background in "Kennedy history" which helps put some of the Senator's personal problems in perspective. For this purpose, I highly recommend Laurence Leamer's books The Kennedy Men and the Kennedy Women both of which I have also read.
   
   This is a very human story where no details are spared. If you want to hear the good, the bad, and the ugly you will definitely enjoy it, but don't pick it up if you can't handle reading about drugs, sex, and extramarital affairs.
   
   Burke is brutally honest about the highs and lows of being the right hand man to arguably the most powerful person in Washington at the time, and the personal sacrifices he had to make in order to perform his job. As Kennedy's Administrative Assistant (Chief of Staff), Burke tucked him into bed at night and woke him up in the morning. He was intimately involved in major family decisions and knew the Senator and his family better than almost anyone else. His book serves as a wise word of caution to anyone who aspires to work on Capitol Hill. Being "in" and having access to the rich and powerful doesn't guarantee happiness and in Burke's case led to self destruction.
   
   After reading Burke's book, I now understand why when I interned in Kennedy's DC office we (the interns) were not allowed to speak to the Senator unless he addressed us first. And because Kennedy would never recognize the vast majority of the 100+ interns working in his offices at any given time, he never said hi to us either. We were told that the Senator's high profile was the reason for this restriction, but after reading Burke's book I'm willing to bet anything that the real reason was that his staff was trying to protect him from his own impulses (i.e. not get near too many attractive women).
   
   I noticed several readers commented that the book didn't focus enough on the Senator's legislative accomplishments and rated it lower because of this. How ridiculous! Burke clearly states that his purpose is not to give a comprehensive chronology of Kennedy's record, but rather to shed light on those aspects of the Senator's life which he was most intimately involved in.
   
   I respect Burke for having the courage to come out with this story. His readiness to own up to his own faults is admirable and as he says at the end of his book, it's important for voters to know just who they are electing. This book has not changed my favorable opinion of the Senator, but it has helped me understand him better.



3. The author worked closely with Ted Kennedy through most of the '70s and the very early '80s as a member of his Senate staff and personal go-to guy, and had very personal access to both the Senator and his family. The book is mainly about the Senator's vices and his family's troubles during that period (which the author was deeply involved in).
   
   I was hoping for more politics and policy. The author vaguely alludes to legislative accomplishments, but doesn't really discuss any. From reading the book, I would gather that the time between saving democracy during the Watergate crisis and the 1980 presidential election was one big party, with some family drama thrown in. The section on the 1980 presidential election was good.
   
   It's clear that Kennedy made bad choices in that period, which was, literally for me, a lifetime ago; some were personal, some were political. What struck me was how many of the unattractive features described by the author reminded me of our current president: the sense of entitlement, a lack of accountability, intense competitiveness, demands for loyalty, and a strange snobbishness (Kennedy thought the Carters were unsophisticated but, according to the author, also thought that the hostage crisis couldn't be helped by President Carter's efforts to understand the situation by *gasp* reading books about Iran). On the plus side, both men have a strong devotion to family.
   
   I didn't really like the book; I finished it only because I'd started it, and I didn't have much else handy at the time. If you are interested in Kennedy dirt, though, this book has it in spades. It's not for everyone, but maybe it's for you.



4. The first 100 pages is interesting but then it begins to get repetitive and aimless. It's worth what I paid for it -- got it at the dollar store. Confirms that TK is worse than I thought, but I wonder if he's even worse than Rick knows. Hmmm.



5. I found this book at a "free read" and am glad I picked it up.
   I feel that Mr. Burke gives what appears to be honest insight into his observation working first from afar then eventually beyond close at hand to Senator Kennedy. I believe the positives of this book far outweigh any negatives one might find in the disclosure of personal family happenings. This book actually has caused me to see Senator Kennedy in a more human, approachable image that as formerly, simply focusing on his family heritage regarding money, fame, etc. My heart goes out to the whole Kennedy family who has suffered tragedy after tragedy in spite of all their wealth which only brings home the truth that money cannot buy happiness. I strongly urge one to read this book. I am glad I did.

5 comments about A Political Odyssey.

1. Mike Gravel spoke truth to power in the Senate and he spoke truth to power during the early presidential debates in 2008. He speaks the truth as he sees it in this book with Joe Lauria. That is no doubt why Howard Dean, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and General Electric, which owns NBC all conspired to ban him from those debates. People who say the Emperor has no clothes are uncomfortable to be around, especial when you are aspiring to be Emperor or are a company that supplies the Emperor's weapons.
   
   What was it Gravel said that got him bounced from most of the debates in 2008? Read this book and you'll find out.
   
   Here is a little preview. The Democrats and Republicans running for office are fond of telling their audiences and voters America is #1 and they intend to keep it that way. Gravel said, sure America is # 1. It is #1 in defense spending, #1 in prison population, #1 in consumer spending and #1 in debt. Gravel also honestly pointed out that we aren't #1 in literacy, infant health, math or savings. Gravel didn't paint the typical pretty picture.
   
   Gravel also offered real if unorthodox solutions such as: End the drug war, abolish the income tax, implement the FAIR tax, bring the troops home now and let the people decide political policy by enacting the National Initiative. Say what you will about the fixes, but you must admit Gravel advocates real change. For Mike Gravel "Change" isn't just a slick slogan.
   
   This book by Gravel and Joe Lauria will evoke the political odyssey any of us of a certain age in the U.S. lived in the 40+ years since Gravel first won a seat in the United States Senate. Mike Gravel was called a "maverick" then and he still is after all these years.
   
   The folks in power in DC don't want to hear the truth. What this country really needs is more mavericks like Mike Gravel and Ron Paul who are willing to tell the truth.
   
   It is said that knowing the truth will set you free. If you want to know the truth, "A Political Odyssey" is a good place to start.



2. Reading this well-paced exploration of Gravel's life and beliefs saddened me because I now wish I'd voted for him. Not that he's perfect: Gravel is far too colorful. But I already regret the vote I did cast, and a vote for Gravel would have meant something.
   Having lived through the furor of the Pentagon Papers, I was astonished to learn so much more about those events. Gravel's account of how the big newspapers snatched glory from a confrontation they subsequently ducked comes as a sharp corrective to History as the media recite it.
   I really enjoyed reading about a genuine maverick whose achievements in the Senate remain shockingly commendable and yes, entertaining. Things were very bad in the early 1970s. How could they have gotten so much worse?
   This country needs leaders who rate beliefs above polls (watch the excellent documentary, CENTURY OF THE SELF), politicians who yearn to be more than ciphers in a pathetic, self-erasing code. The only standing senator who reminds me at all of Gravel is Russell Feingold, abandoned on FISA by colleagues who rush to say they care about personal freedom until called upon to prove it. They 'reluctantly' play along while our hollowed-out economy becomes ever more militarized.
   Gravel wanted to provoke a referendum on this process. Dazzled by hype, we ignored him. It's not too late to read this book, then start demanding that these slugs account for themselves.
   Enjoy.



3. If you watched the Democratic primary debates you probably saw two Mike Gravels.
   
   One was the candidate who most directly spoke truth to power: he challenged Hillary on her preparedness to nuke Iran, challenged Obama for voting to fund the Iraq war, challenged the "mealy mouthed" Democratic Congressional leadership, condemned the `war on drugs,' condemned Bush for creating "a nation ruled by fear" and denounced America for allowing itself to become Number One in production of weapons, consumer spending, debt, people in prison, energy consumption, and environmental pollution.
   
   The other Gravel came over as the crazy uncle who should have stayed locked in his attic.
   
   This book helps us to understand why. Lauria manages to get Gravel to confess to all his human flaws: his vanity, his ambition, his opportunism, his naiveté. Would that all our politicians were so honest. But he also reminds us of his lonely fight to end the draft in Vietnam, his determination to stand up to Nixon over the Pentagon Papers and his vehement opposition to American militarism. For all his foibles, the man is a genuine hero.
   
   The book is written with a light touch. It captures Gravel's voice and his no b-s attitude perfectly and it reads in places almost like a novel - who knew that Gravel was once a New York cabbie, a railroad brakeman in Alaska, much less an American spy in Europe? Yet Lauria also manages to interlace it with some heavy-duty historical research into the birth of the military-industrial complex and the way in which so many of our presidents have chosen to exploit fear and twist our Constitution in order to justify huge arms expenditures and bloody foreign adventures that have generated huge profits for the weapons merchants back home.
   
   Gravel's solution to the way in which our democratic republic is periodically hijacked by what is in effect a fear-mongering elected monarch and a Congress in thrall to its corporate backers and their imperial ambitions, is government by national initiative - legislation initiated by The People and voted on in national referenda.
   
   At first blush it is hard to see how such an idea could ever gain traction. And when one thinks of initiatives like California's Proposition 13 which decimated the best public education system in the country, it's hard not wonder if direct democracy might not be worse than the (un)representative version we have now. But it does make one think. America's revolutionary experiment was supposed to be a permanent revolution... ever more perfectible. And, given the way the Internet is tying us all ever closer together in a network of instant communication and given the galvanizing effect of online organizing evident in Obama's campaign, it makes one wonder if Gravel will simply prove to be a prophet before his time.
   
   If we could all vote directly, would we really spend close to 50% of our national budget on the Pentagon, national security and war, as we do today? It is that monumental folly that seems to unite Gravel and Lauria in their passion and that makes this book such a good read.



4. A revealing book... The fact is, representative government is broken, and there are only two venues for change: One is the government, where the problem exists, and two is the people. Correction can only take place with the people of America to buy and read this GREAT book.



5. If all you remember is what Dwight D. Eisenhower said about the military-industrial complex almost half a century ago, A Political Odyssey by Sen. Mike Gravel is a Must Read. Investigative journalist Joe Lauria wrote this book, and the Senator said so at a Meet the Author event at Barnes & Noble's Upper West Side store in Manhattan in early July. Lauria shows, through Mr. Gravel's eyes, how difficult, and indeed impossible it is for a junior senator to fight the cozy relationship between the government and the defense industry. Nothing has changed really since Eisenhower's days. That isn't new, of course. But Mr. Lauria manages, in very readable prose, to bring back to life the Pentagon Papers and point out the relevance of this episode today. Sen. Gravel's conclusion at the Meet the Author event: Representative democracy doesn't work.
   Walter Pfaeffle
   Journalist, New York

2 comments about Beria - My Father: Inside Stalin's Kremlin.

1. Most sons will only remember what a good man his father was. It is a pity any man has to go through life knowing that his father had no morals at all, and had so many people tortured and murdered. As sad as it is, this is one case where no amount of cleaning up behind his father can remove the blood. The author has no reason to even attempt this clean up, but he does. Would we want to read a book by a son of Hitler's that tells us that "Dad was just misunderstood?" Beria made Hitler look like an amateur. This son is not guilty of anything, other than writing this book. He should go through life with his head held up just as any other man. However, the book should never have been written. The only purpose of remembering Beria at all is to remember what pure evil, the devil and Hell is, and how the Russian people got there. At best, the book is fiction, and it made me angry at Sergo for writing it.



2. If I didn't know so much already, I would have gone away thinking
   Beria was a great moderating influence on the most bloodthirsty
   government of the 20th Century. But then I recall he was the very top man of the terror organization of this government; that requires volumes to record it's crimes and victims. Sergo is a good son, and could teach our liars in D.C. a thing or two about spin!
   Nevertheless, this book is fascinating reading.