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.

2 comments about Ronald Reagan: A Life In Politics.

1. I did read the whole book just so I could comment on it. The part about him being docile when visiting his parents home made me throw up. But I persevered and read the rest of it. I just don't understand why the President and Nancy let this book happen. If you hate Reagan and you hate Conservatives, then this book should make you very happy. I threw my copy away. No way was I going to give this to the library like I usually do.



2. I am confused why they sell these books at the Reagan Library. Admittedly they are long, through, and have wonderful cover at. But the content is what disturbs me. Not the entire content, but just three things.
   
   The first snag is that Cannon does not like Reagan. He clearly admits this in-in his footnotes:
   
   "It was the only time Reagan ever complimented me on anything I write." (Governor, 311n)
   
   This quote sums up the books main negative bias. This book is a history of Reagan as filtered through Cannon's philosophical grid. This makes for a tedious read. He takes Reagan on Lou Cannon's terms. Maybe that is why Cannon had a weekly column that included "Reaganisms," (President, 102n).
   
   Cannon is, however, fascinated by him. He freely admits this in the 1991 preface to President Reagan. This provides a positive bias, which saves the book from being a multi-volume hit piece.
   
   The second snag, is the books are almost all context. It is always "Reagan And": Reagan and Unruh, Reagan and Meese, Reagan and Reagan, and Reagan and Nancy. But we never see Reagan as an individual.
   
   The Gipper's tag-line is the Great Communicator, but Cannon rarely quotes him. This sucks the life out of the Regan magic. Read Michael Reagan's quote book on his father and then read this book. It is like seeing two different men. One is a lively and deep thinker; the other is a vague buffoon. But will the real Ronald Regan please stand up?
   
   Reagan also had a gift for humor. Peggy Noonan observed that Reagan had "an encyclopedic memory for jokes." (When Character Was King, 228). However, Cannon, in his chapter on Reagan's humor, talks about his humor in the abstract and recounts his juicier ethnic jokes (President, 101-102).
   
   The last snag is in the area of analogy. The second book is subtitled "The role of a Lifetime." His rhetorical device is to cast Reagan merely as an actor who gets the chance to play a president. This is a combination of "I'm not a president, but I play one on TV" and the plot to the film "Dave."
   
   Hover, this rhetorical device affects his logic. David Hackett Fischer calls this "the fallacy of insidious analogy" ("Historians' Fallacies," 244ff). The problem is that Cannon's analogy takes over his writing. It also become contradictory at times.
   
   For example, Chapter six of the presidential book discuses what Canon calls "the script." What he means by the script is the core philosophical ideas that Reagan had that attracted the voters. Cannon freely admits, "But it was the script that was compelling, and it was Reagan who wrote it." (President, 66). Then in later chapters he speaks of Reagan taking direction and needing a director (President, Chapter 10, p. 25, 32, 116, ).
   
   Cannon may misunderstand the necessity of delegation. The role of the president is to be the leader. That is, he articulates the vision, and then empowers his staff and cabinet to implement the vision. That is why he said, ""Surround yourself with the best people you can find, delegate authority and don't interfere as long as the policy you've decided is carried out." (President, 150). Ill timed or not, it is not only sound advice, it is the only way to run a country. A micromanager could not last three second as president.
   
   To be sure, Reagan may not have done follow-up as well as he should have, but he did understand the genius of individual people. He was not just remaking country, but truing everyone into demi-gods by empowering them.
   
   I think I have said enough, but there is one comment that just grates me. In Chapter 9 of the president book, Canon describes the rise and fall of the M/X missile. During one Cabinet meeting, Regan showed up with a cartoon of Uncle Sam playing as hell-game with Brezhnev. This clinched the issue for Reagan. (President, 138). Cannon conclude the chapter saying that Reagan was a "president who skimped on preparation, avoided complexities and news conferences, and depended far too heavily on anecdotes, charts, graphics, and cartoons." (President, 140)
   
   Cannon forgets that Reagan had an intuitive sense of people, and was able to connect without the use of the Cabinet and Bureaucracy (President, 119). One obvious was he did that was by listening to them. Another way was attuning himself to the humor. Cannon forgets the power of humor and that George burns said, "Truth is the basis of all good comedy."(Governor, 107). That one political cartoon illustrated a truth that would do honor to Socrates or Kierkegaard. For Cannon, the medium was the message. End of story.
   
   The gubernatorial book is the better book. Cannon does not feel the need to cover as much as he does in the Presidential book (Some of the material is redundant). The Presidential one has long chapters that sometimes get muddled. Chapter 8 covers Reagan's humor and thought patterns, and Chapter 11 covers Regan's early life-kind of late in the book for that. Also, Hinckley isn't mentioned by name in the narrative about the assassination, which is covered in half a paragraph, and then resumed in the narrative about the melt-down of Alex Haige.
   
   What would have helped this book? First of all, Cannon needs to sort out what he really thinks about Reagan. He is fascinated and even at times charmed by Reagan. But it is a love-hate relationship. Cannon disagrees with Reagan politically and philosophically. It is almost like Canon is afraid of Regan and feels the need to cut him down a notch.
   
   Canon makes the comment that Reagan may have never read E. B. White (President, 97). I suggest the same for Cannon: Remember Strunk and White's first rule of Composition: Place Yourself in the background (Strunk and White, 70).
   
   Secondly, "Check your premises." Figure out why you have this attraction to reign, and name concretes. Both were Irish and had Alcoholic fathers (President, 174n), but there is something deeper.

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.

No comments about Thomas Paine: Enlightenment, Revolution, and the Birth of the Modern Nations.

No comments about An Unlikely Conservative: The Transformation Of An Ex-liber.

1 comments about Sandra Day O'Connor: Justice in the Balance (Women's Biography Series).

1. The second volume of the "Women's Biography" series, Sandra Day O'Connor: Justice In The Balance is the remarkable true story of the first female United States Supreme Court justice. From her humble beginnings on a cattle ranch, where she learned important lessons about hard work, self-reliance, and the greatness of the outdoors, to her studies at Stanford University, her struggle to find a job as a lawyer in an era when law firms did not want to hire women, the responsibility of juggling her career with marriage, politics, three children, and breast cancer, and her nomination to her judicial post of prestige by President Ronald Regan. A solid biography of the "quiet feminist", written for readers of all backgrounds, and especially recommended for school and public library collections.

5 comments about Monica's Story.

1. Monica Samille Lewinsky appears to be either incredibly naive or incredibly childish. This book is not a page turner. If you are interested in her camps' POV... then you may like this book. The author says her "disorderly routine and her neurotic behavior over weight perfectly explain why she never cleaned the notorious blue Gap dress that was stained with the President's semen" (page 11).
   
   She is characterized as very naive. She documented every little detail as if it was major, which appears that she had a motive for the future use of this information. It gave me thoughts that she was contemplating possible blackmail, book deals, and/or movie deals.
   
   Yet again... she was either incredibly smart, naive, or silly.



2. This book was quite dumb, and all that it does is emphasize how dumb people can be. If you're a Republican right-winger who's more interested in a president's, a man's, sexcapades than what he does with the economy, then read on by all means. This mindless book was made for you.



3. Any woman in her early twenties, who has ever fallen in love with a man who is married and forbidden by conventional ethical and professional standards, will find empathy in this book.

   Whatever side of truth or political scenario this book attempts to portray, I primarily read it as a romance and enjoyed it more than ever. The book's appeal lies in the dynamics of the affair between the young intern and the president, rather than any political truth-finding. Maybe, there are too many 'truths' out there, and who are we to judge which one is true. This is Monica's version, so why quibble about absolute realities?

   The book certainly does a good job of revealing her a human figure rather than a man-hunting slut responsible for the impreachment of Clinton.

   Why marvel Marie Antoinette and Josephine, and not Monica? I admire Monica Lewinsky as a person who enjoys poetry, loves life, watches her weight, experiments with men, and most of all braves what the world thinks of her. I really think people ought to stop thinking of her as a sex symbol.

   Tragic as the love story's end is, Monica RULZ!!!




4. This book was quite ridiculous. Although I applaud the author on his efforts, the book was among other things boring and without depth. The story somehow tries to paint Monica as highly intelligent, sure of what she wanted and able to speak her own mind. But she is also supposed to be lost, confused, and have low self esteem. Am I the only person who sees the contradiction here?

   I honestly picked up this book simply because it was in the library and sounded interesting. I am not truly interested in either politics or gossip. Although I knew information about the Lewinsky scandal (who didn't?), I never defended one side or the other. I don't think Lewinsky is an evil women who should be burned at the stake. I also think that some people are too quick to criticize her without considering the fact that we've all done something we aren't proud of in our lives. I think she was truly in love with the President and that she didn't try to set him up. However this book goes way too far in trying to make her sound innocent. Any decent person will own up to the fact that they have done something wrong. But this book made Monica into the hurt little victim, without taking any responsibility for her own actions. The thing that bothered me the most was that no one ever considered Hilary or Chelsea seriously in the story. Monica somehow seems to almost completely write them out of the picture as if the family didn't matter. Of course she does mention that she followed Hilary's actions so she could know when the President would call her. For someone who is so intelligent it is surprising to me that she never considered what effect it would have on other people (namely the Clinton family) if she and the President actually did get married, something she often daydreams about in the story. Does she expect to just lovingly become Chelsea's stepmother? Although the author tried to avoid this he truly ended up making Monica sound extremely neurotic.

   In life there is usually no black or white area. Most situations can not be interpreted as completely right or wrong. All people live in a gray area, meaning sometimes they do the right thing and other times they don't. In this book we apparently meet the first person who doesn't, because Monica Lewinsky lives totally in the white area. I wish I had picked up a book with much more depth.




5. Not indepth reading, but remember the story and the people it includes. The book details Monica's emotions to conincide with what headlines the public knew. Worth reading, if you are interested in what took place (obviously from her side). Many facts and the Starr Report excerpts to legitimize assertions.

2 comments about The Letters of Sacco and Vanzetti (Penguin Classics).

1. Polenberg of Cornell University The introduction to The Letters of Sacco and Vanzetti (Penguin Books 1997) by Professor Richard Polenberg is richly informative. The publication is timely and useful. Readers must ask whether these letters offer a clue to the moral character of convicted murderers Sacco and Vanzetti. John Nicholas Beffel, radical journalist who roomed with chief defense counsel Fred Moore during the Dedham trial, declared in “The New Republic,” December 29, 1920, that Vanzetti was a “philosophical anarchist.” In “The Case of Sacco and Vanzetti” (March 1927), Harvard Law School Professor Felix Frankfurter called Vanzetti “a dreamy fish peddler” (p. 101). Bruce Bliven, “managing editor of the liberal New Republic” (a phrase from American National Biography), wrote of Sacco and Vanzetti: “Their faith is philosophical anarchism.” See TNR: June 22, 1927, p. 121. When an unknown reviewer in the April 1929 issue of the anarchist journal “The Road to Freedom” argued that Upton Sinclair’s novel “Boston” was the work of an unfit historian, Sinclair replied angrily in the June issue: “It is a fact that Sacco was a ‘Militant Anarchist.’” Anarchist editor Hippolyte Havel agreed. In the August 1929 issue of “Lantern” Walter Lippmann wrote: “By every test that I know of for judging character, these are the letters [The Letters of Sacco and Vanzetti] of innocent men.” Note: The brackets are by Lippmann Frederick Allen (Only Yesterday, 1931) said Vanzetti was “clearly a remarkable man--an intellectual of noble character, a philosophical anarchist of a type which it seemed impossible to associate with a pay-roll murder.” Alfred Jules Ayer, Professor of Logic at Oxford, reviewing Francis Russell’s 1962 book on Sacco and Vanzetti, wrote: “Both men were active anarchists of an idealistic kind.” Ayer said the letters of Vanzetti revealed “a man of great swetnesss and nobility of character.” See New Statesman: 5 July 1963. Sacco-Vanzetti scholars who met at the Boston Public Library on October 26 and 27, 1979, reminded readers that time is a great corrective. Professor Nunzio Pernicone, on the second conference day said: “ . . . these men [Sacco and Vanzetti] were not philosophical anarchists; they were genuine, militant revolutionaries.” See “Sacco-Vanzetti: Developments and Reconsiderations--1979,” the 1982 publication by Trustees of the Public Library of the City of Boston. In “Sacco and Vanzetti: The Anarchist Background,” a 1991 publication by Princeton University Press, Professor Paul Avrich wrote: “Both [Sacco and Vanzetti] were ultra-militants, . . .” See p. 161 for Avrich’s citation to Sinclair’s letters that acknowledge the militancy of Sacco and Vanzetti. On page xxxix of his Introduction, Polenberg calls Edmund M. Morgan a historian. In fact, Morgan is called Royall Professor of Law at Harvard University on the back cover of the 1978 reprint of “The Legacy of Sacco and Vanzetti,” that 1948 book by Joughin and Morgan that Tom O’Connorr said had educated a generation of college students and professors. Polenberg’s assertion (p. xxxix) that Joughin and Morgan, . . .believed Sacco and Vanzetti innocent, . . .” must be severely qualified. Morgan said Ehrmann’s book, “The Untried Case: The Sacco-Vanzetti Case and the Morelli Gang,” failed to convince him that the Morelli gang, not Sacco and Vanzetti, had committed the crime at South Braintree. Morgan also said that if Sacco and Vanzetti “were alive today [1934] and were to be tried again, . . . and if a verdict were returned, it could not be set aside as contrary to the weight of evidence, at least against Sacco.” See Harvard Law Review, January 1934. Morgan has more telling concessions in the book he and Joughin published in 1948. On pp. 55-56 he calls Vanzetti’s Plymouth trial fair, the verdict just. On p. 46 Morgan writes: “ . . . this cross-examination, taken alone,

   tends strongly to show that a group of Italians had framed an alibi for Vanzetti and had coached this bright youngster [Beltrado Brini] to tell his story with details which would tie in with the incidents related by other witnesses.” On pages 48-49 Morgan says Vanzetti’s statements on the Plymouth trial are suspect. A handbook on the two disputed trials is “Kill Now, Talk Forever: Debating Sacco and Vanzetti,” an ebook by 1stBooks Library. Soft cover issue will be available before the end of summer....




2. This is the most important testament to a now largely forgotten tragedy of American politics. Sacco and Vanzetti were essentially convicted and executed for being unpatriotic foreigners, regardless of the crime they were accused of [for which no specific evidence was presented against them]. They waited for seven years in prison before their execution, during which time they wrote these letters. Their English, though it improved through the years, was never fully accomplished. But the results are extraordinary. The letters express ideas about life, society, faith, politics and human feelings, and the often clumsy and misused language actually makes the expression more lucid and more beautiful. The path of trial, appeal and final sentencing runs through clearly, and as the end approaches the letters are inexpressibly heartbreaking, as when Sacco asks his wife to tell his daughter "that I love her so much, and again, so much." This book has been in and out of print since the late 1920's, and is often unavailable in libraries because patrons steal it. It is a blessing that Penguin has brought it back.

No comments about Isis Mary Sophia: Her Mission and Ours.