5 comments about The Bureau and the Mole: The Unmasking of Robert Philip Hanssen, the Most Dangerous Double Agent in FBI History.

1. This book doesn't compare with David Wise's book "Spy, The Inside Story of How the FBI's Robert Hanssen Betrayed America." There seems to be a lot of assumptions and conjecture's in the Vise book. Wise has much better sources.



2. The book provided background on not only Robert Hanssen, but also the individuals associated with the job. I enjoyed the book very much.



3. A frightening look into the mind and works of a socially inadequate FBI Agent who betrayed the American people, trading their safety over cash and diamond. The most disturbing fact was his fantasy of retiring from the FBI and move to Moscow and train future spies. The author did an excellent job in telling the lives of a deceitful Hanssen and of a dedicated Director Freeh.
   
   Undoubtedly written by a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist.
   
   Check also: They Spy who Stayed out in the Cold.
   Cold Eyes



4. I felt the book was very interesting. It has a good narative form.
   I do feel, however, it could have been less graphic on some of Robert's home life. I did read it after seeing the movie "Breach". The book's characterizations of the two main personalities added interest. The author has done a good job with a difficult subject



5. This book was a page turner. The author built a psychological profile of Robert Hansesn as well as reported historical facts, to try to give us some insight into his motivation, as well as placed him in a historical context. How could someone who loved this country and was devoted to law enforcement become such a terrible traitor and cause the death of so many people? It gives an amazing account.

5 comments about George and Laura: Portrait of an American Marriage.

1. This book is wonderfully written, very insightful, and I would highly recommend it to anyone who was looking to learn more about the lives of the President and First Lady. I was so enthralled while reading it, I could hardly put it down.



2. A puzzling minor error: page 42 says "Blacks (in Midland, TX) went to their own schools, not to Sam Houston Elementary. There were separate waiting rooms for them at the courthouse..." However page 46 says "there were no blacks in town then -- I mean none."



3. The best part of this wonderful tribute to commercial marriage was the sound effects CD. I mean how often do you get to hear Laura and George grunt. I tell you, it gave me the shivers. Then, when I thought it couldn't get any better I found the scratch and sniff section. That was too much. I was beyond redemption at that point. Frankly, I don't know how they are able to sell this gem for so little. I suppose they stiffed the ghost writer. (Do you think it was Lynn Cheney?) Anyway, if you want a presidential grunt and sniff fest for you very own bedroom then this is the book for you. I've literally gotten minutes of pleasure from this book and so has my peeping Tom neighbor, Alonzo, downstairs.



4. A wonderfully written book, showing that old fashion marriage, love & respect are still alive In America.
   The love and respect they have for one another is so evident. Being in the spotlight doesn't stop this beautiful couple from showing the love and respect they have for one another. It shows a book will hold your interest without it having to be filled with sexual thoughts and actions. Loved the book and believe others will as well. Good old fashion love story.



5. I started reading this book on a Friday night and finished it on Saturday. It is such a welcoming look at a real marriage portrayole. It reminded me so much of my husband and myself, who also will be married 27 years this July. My Daughter read it first, brought it to me, now my son and husband are agruing who gets to read it next! Christopher Andersen did a great and explicit job of portraying these two intoxicating, loving, yet determined individuals in this book. Hats off to you. What a great read. I recomment this one at 5 stars!

5 comments about Mussolini's Shadow: The Double Life of Count Galeazzo Ciano.

1. I had some respect for Ciano before I read this, thinking he was the conscience of the Italian people. In getting to know Ciano by reading this book I realized that he was a mirrow image of IL Duce, including the womanizing part. His wife, Duce's daughter, was just as vain and an equally sorry figure. The author does a splendid job of researching old documents, talking to some of the older survivors and friends for first hand info.



2. This is truly one of the most disturbing stories in World War 2. Ciano would become the epitome of everything hated in Italy. He would claim responsibility for the invasion of Albania and Greece and blamed for some of the worst defeats in Italy's history. Much of this is undeserved as Mussolini was calling many of the shots and the fall out between the two became apparent. Had Ciano been stronger and not captured under the personality cult of Mussolini the break would have been bigger and he would have opposed the war shattering the Duce ideas of a strong Italian army. The diaries that Ciano wrote would be key aspects of Nuremberg and both the allies and axis sought to acquire them. The story of the acquisition is heart wrenching and Edda Ciano's bravery is truly remarkable. What she went through from the execution of her husband to the estrangement of her father Mussolini was simply amazing. This is a must read for those who want to understand how World War 2 unfolded and the war that Italy played. It is a well written biography and truly a great addition to the historiography.



3. Moseley has written a readable and well researched book on the life of the enigmatic Count Ciano. It is certainly the first comprehensive study of Ciano to appear in English. Ciano is worthy of the attention of anyone interested in Twentieth Century Europe, diplomacy, or World War II. Moseley does a good job of revealing Ciano's evolution from a blind follower of Mussolini to active and effective foil. There can be little doubt that in anything less than an unrestricted dictatorship, Ciano's efforts to keep Italy out of WWII would have succeeded. In the end Ciano's undisguished contempt of the Nazi Heirarchy cost him his life. I recommend this book as a precursor to reading Ciano's diary.



4. This is a superb read and Mr Mosely coveres an intensely complex period with majesty and skill. Here and there it is a bit difficult who the subject is of a sentence, as the relative pronoun sometimes doesn't come after the immediately preceding subject of a sentence, but that happens rarely. Mr Moseley's reads like a thriller, but at the same time is a thoroughly researched, critical reading of a tragic, through fascinating period of history. I cannot recommend this book more highly for anyone interested obviously in history, but also for those interested in human behviour and our ability to deceive and contradict ourselves. Do read!



5. This is a good book and Mr. Moseley is to be congratulated on a decent job. He has done his research and provided a vivid account of Ciano and the people around him. I do not give this book five stars, however, because it needs editing. It seems in some places Mr. Moseley loses his strong narrative as he relates diary entry after diary entry - seemingly with little connection. Also, the book could have used a glossary containing the names of the principal players in the Italian fascist government. These faults lie not with Mr. Moseley as much as with his editor/publisher. Nevertheless, I rcommend this book as one that provides a fascinating slice of WWII history.

No comments about A Journey Through The Life of William Wilberforce.

5 comments about Joseph P. Kennedy: The Mogul, the Mob, the Statesman, and the Making of an American Myth.

1. It is obvious from reading this book that the author holds Joe Kennedy Sr. in very low esteem and cares little for the Kennedys in general. Based on the information he presents, one can clearly see why. If only a fraction of it is true; Joe Kennedy could best be described as a ruthless, self-serving, border-line criminal and stock manipulator; an inveterate philanderer, ignoble husband and father, and, all-in-all, a poor excuse for a human being.
   
   It isn't clear, however, as to whether the author held these views when he began researching the book or came to those conclusions after studying his subject. The answer to that question would seem to bear heavily on the efficacy of the subject matter he presents. Did the author, for example, pick and choose his data? If so, although it seems highly unlikely, Joe Kennedy may have had some redeeming qualities which went untold. Perhaps he didn't kick his dog.
   
   It is also somewhat disconcerting that throughout the book the author occasionally throws in gratuitous pejoratives seemingly intended to cast aspersions on Joe, although, in light of the evidence, Joe certainly needs none. And, at other times, he tells us what some of those who knew Joe were thinking and lets us know what they thought of Joe. One is left to wonder how he knows, since he rarely references these sources.
   
   Nevertheless, based upon its numerous notes and references, this is a well researched and well substantiated biography of a man who, although extremely wealthy and politically powerful, spent most of his life in the shadows. In later life, he used his wealth and power to give America the illusion of "Camelot," but during his lifetime he did much more than that. During World War I, for example, he dodged the draft. Then, with the advent of prohibition, he used his father's connections in Canada and England to arrange booze shipments for delivery to underworld characters in the United States, such as Al Capone. He never worked as a "bootlegger" in a romantic sense. He never outraced the Coast Guard to deliver the goods. Instead, Joe just made the money. Later, he went to Hollywood where he made his mark and took Gloria Swanson as his mistress. While there, he managed her affairs (business) and lavished her with expensive gifts - most of which were later found to have been paid for with Gloria's own money. (Geez, what a guy!) Then, if truth be told, Joe established and helped run various stock pools aimed at manipulating the stock market to the benefit of the pool members. (This is said to have been one of the causes of the stock market crash of 1929 and the resulting "Great Depression.") Later, Joe helped get Franklin D. Roosevelt elected president and, as a result, managed to get himself appointed as the U.S. Ambassador to Great Britain shortly before World War II. Unfortunately, Joe didn't understand world affairs, seemed to side with the fascists, and never grasped the fact that he was in England to represent the president of the United States, not to express his own views and make more money. So, when the State Department was finally forced to bypass him in the decision making process, President Roosevelt demanded and accepted his resignation. Following the war, Joe had a frontal lobotomy performed on his daughter, Rosemary, ruining her life; then set about furthering his son's, John F. Kennedy's, political career through one nefarious scheme after another. Joe even managed to preclude JFK's being court marshaled for dereliction of duty for letting his PT boat (PT-109) be rammed, causing two deaths, and instead arranged to have JFK cast as a national hero. The rest, as they say, is history.
   
   Bottom line: Those who are more interested in the Kennedy's than I am, and knew a lot more about the Kennedys than I did, may find this book repetitive of previous works. Those who aren't, and particularly those who fell for the Camelot myth, will certainly find it to be a real eye opener, particularly since old Joe still wields some measure of power having tried very hard to mold his sons in his own image.



2. If you have never read anything in depth about either the Kennedy family or Joseph Kennedy (sins of the father, the founding father) you might go thru this book and discover a revelation or two. If you have, then this book will come across as trite, boring and a bit fraudulent. By the latter, I mean the book promises new revelations, and delivers nothing more than the usual information that any "light" student of the Kennedys and Joe in particular already know. Worse yet, some of the contentions are incorrect and almost none of them are backed up by source materials in the book's note section. For instance, the author suggests that JFK's doctors knew he would not live thru a second term, and further suggest that the assassin's bullet spared us-Citizens that is- from watching our president die in office post 1964. Yet, the author offers absolutely no source information for this contention. Yes, anybody who has read more than two Kennedy books knows that JFK was ill throughout most his life; but that same person would know that most of his life threatening ailments were under control by the time he was elected president. (The fact that these illnesses were kept secret from the general public does not make them fatal within the second term, as the author implies!). There are other points in this book where it is evident that the author just plain does not like Joe Kennedy. That's ok. A little odium dripped on a biographical protagonist as deserving as Joe Kennedy can be forgiven- after all the man did do a great many horrible things in his life time. But when that level of despise effects the quality of ones research and ultimately hobbles ones effort, than a little restraint might have been appropriate. Don't bother with this book.



3. The book was a great insight into JPK and gives the reader a more solid understanding of his descendants. It also sheds a great deal of light on anti-Irish sentiments and gives an almost psycho-social explanation for JPK's actions based on the discrimination he encountered as a youth. One review stated that there was too much anecdotal information that is not properly accounted for. This may be true. However, i always enjoy a biography that explains the subject matter (i.e.JPK) in the historical context in which they lived in. This was done masterfully by Mr. Schwarz.



4. If you're a follower of the Kennedy saga, there may be little new material here in the biography, JOSEPH P. KENNEDY. But it's interesting and highly readable. It covers everyone from JPK's ancesters in Ireland to Caroline and John Jr.'s generation. Jackie comes off well. But there are a lot of unpleasant things about Rose I'd never heard before. And there are things I knew about but never knew the truth behind -- like the tragedy of Rosemary.

   As I read the book, I thought he made statements that would be considered controversial. But as I read on, and looked at the notes and bibliography, I realized Mr. Schwarz did indeed appear to be well informed. It's oddly written, with some really long sentences and some anecdotes stuck in totally out of any time sequence. If only for the insights into the worlds of politics and Hollywood, it's well worth your time. And it's pretty enjoyable.




5. I thought I knew a lot about the Kennedy family before, but this book opened up a whole new world. It's really fascinating reading, especially if you like to read about the Kennedy family.

5 comments about The Wrong Stuff: The Extraordinary Saga of Randy "Duke" Cunningham, the Most Corrupt Congressman Ever Caught.

1. The Wrong Stuff is a good read on a number of levels.
   
   It challenges our overuse of the word "hero" and forces us to be more discerning and skeptical about those we so readily put on pedestals. Apart from those few minutes over North Vietnam, a bit of luck combined with flying skill, there was nothing heroic about Duke Cunningham. Character flaws were evident in his youth. What he did in Congress should come as no surprise. As Sartre says, the end is in the beginning.
   
   The Wrong Stuff illustrates the need for political reform in campaign finance, the legislative process of earmarks, ethics and oversight. These are dry subjects, but by putting a face -- albeit a sad and corrupt one --on the subject, the authors have penned a readable, well-understood page-turner. They have made a complex issue understandable.
   
   And it is a good how-to book on journalism. Marc Stern broke the story by using good, old-fashioned news instinct born of experience first gained poking around the docks of the gritty Los Angeles port of San Pedro, then later the back hallways and rooms of Washington. He followed those instincts by working the phones, asking probing questions, pounding the pavement and not taking no for an answer. If you want a lesson on how to win a Pulitzer, which Stern did, this is a good place to start. He followed the Yogi Berra axiom: "You can see a lot just by looking."



2. I live in San Diego and bought this book at a street festival. Two of the authors (Marcus Stern and Dean Calbreath) were there and signed the book for me.
   
   The book describes the seemingly sudden fall of Congressman and war hero Randy Cunningham. I say "seemingly" because the authors show that his crimes were the logical extensions of a pattern of behavior based on the belief that he was above rules and laws that the rest of us follow.
   
   The book starts on Duke's best day: May 10, 1972. On that day he and Willie Driscoll shot down three enemy aircraft; this made them the first Navy Aces of the Vietnam War and they were awarded the Navy Cross. What few people knew about Duke was his demand that he be awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. When he made this demand to his commanding officer, Ron McKeown, told him: "You ain't going to get the Medal of Honor. Here's what's going to go down: First, both of you are going to go get a haircut. Then you're going to get your blues cleaned and pressed with gold braid and make sure you've got a good shine on your shoes. And tomorrow, at ten o'clock, a grateful nation is going to heap its praise on two of its lofty heros and give you the Navy Cross. And you're going to accept them and be gracious and charming. Anything less than that and I will personally rip your [breasts] off."
   
   From there it's off to the races. Duke's life was nothing more than a series of these events leading to Congress where he had no Ron McKeown to reign him in. As a congressman he played up the war hero image to the max, even falsely claiming to be the inspiration of Tom Cruise in Top Gun. He also found that there were people who would slip money to him in return for awarding defense contracts and this seemed to have no limit.
   
   Duke's world started to fall apart when it was revealed that he sold his home for an inflated price to Mitchell Wade, a defense contractor who earned incredible profits from Duke's earmarks. Pulling this string began an avalanche of stories that even Duke's best efforts couldn't stop. My favorite story was his call to an antique store in Maryland. Mr. Wade bought several antiques for Duke and in a pathetic attempt to cover this Duke called the manager to "remind" her that when Wade paid for it with a credit card, Duke reimbursed Wade with cash. He insisted he paid Wade $35,000 but the manager (Sandra Ellington) wouldn't buy it saying that she would remember if he gave Wade 350 $100 bills.
   
   I liked the book and recommend it, but with two caveats. First, the book has 4 authors and it shows. They all have different writing styles and it makes the book choppy; they would have been well served if they had hired one editor to smooth over this and make the book easier to read. Second one of the authors (I'm not sure which) had a habit of making assumptions with nothing to back it up. In describing Duke's lifestyle between marriages he talked about Duke's evenings at the officer's club on base. "Cunningham...was no stranger to the police during these years. But these were different times, way before Mothers Against Drunk Driving and legislative crackdowns on drinking, long before the term 'designated driver' existed. And not many cops, either on or off the base, were about to arrest a man they knew was the Navy's only ace. Far better to just make sure he got home safely without hurting himself or others." The quotation is fine but gives no indication that Duke drove drunk or was pulled over. This would have had much more credibility if he had a quotation from a local cop who had pulled him over.
   
   That said, it's a good read about a man who believed he was untouchable.



3. Don't forget, Duke was using his influence and reputation as a war hero to steer defense contracts. He was stealing from the Armed Forces in time of war, a traitor to his country and his own men.
   
   Not only is Duke at the center of the Hookergate scandal, this ties into the US attorney scandal, as well as the indictment of Brent Wilkes and former CIA official Kyle "Dusty" Foggo. The Wilkes/Foggo debacle is apparently tied to bribery at the CIA. Google their names and "IranConta" to see how many of the characters in the Cunningham scandal go back to the Reagan adminsitration. Apparently the money laundring, drug running, and bribery network that started in the 80's took on a life of its own. While the Iraq war was still in the planning stages, they swarmed into DC and started bribing congressmen like Cunningham to get their cut of the Iraq pie in the form of sole source contracts.



4. The author's claim that Cunningham was a corrupt Congressman is true, but his claim that he is the "Most Corrupt Congressman Ever Caught" is not true. Congressman William Jefferson has been caught The FBI seized $90,000 in marked bills in Jefferson's home freezer. That cold cash is just the tip of the iceberg of the evidence against "Dollar Bill" Jefferson.
   There is a major difference between Cunningham and Jefferson. Cunningham was a brave and decorated combat pilot. By contrast, Jefferson did not serve in combat and may never have served in the military at all.
   This book is a one-sided hatchet job.



5. Lily Tomlin once said no matter how cynical you are, you can't keep up. Mostly, I've viewed Congress as corrupt in those small, corrosive and bipartisan ways: a campaign donation begets wording in a bill, a vote or a visit. But, the size and scale of Duke Cunningham's pocket-bulging corruption boggles the mind. It must be read to be believed. And, the authors carefully inserted an important qualifier in their subtitle: the Most Corrupt Congressman EVER CAUGHT. All of which makes you wonder: What happened to all those promised reforms on ethics and lobbying?

5 comments about Greatness: Reagan, Churchill, and the Making of Extraordinary Leaders.

1. If I could have met two Historical figures they would have been Prime Minister Churchill & President Reagan. I often thought that someone should do a comparison of these two great icons of History and here it is.
   
   I have read this book and in my humble opinion Mr. Hayward has done a great job in comparing & contrasting the style and personalities of these two men.
   
   I think that if you are an admirer of either PM Churchill or President Reagan (like I am)then this is a must have book. I'm glad it is part of my Churchill/Regan collection.



2. Looking at the title of the book I thought, "wow a book about Reagan and Churchill, what could be better?" But in the end I thought the book was more just a telling of facts more than an indepth review of their leadership characteristics and I never found in the book where it talked about the making of great leaders. It just seemed to say everything that happened to Reagan and Churchill and that seemed to be enough for the author. I did learn some things about Reagan that I did not know so I will go back to this book for those facts but it just was not what I thought it would be from the book's description.



3. Can greatness among human beings really be spoken of in modern times? Perhaps it is a politically incorrect, anachronistic idea in our egalitarian age. Indeed, regarding both these men, Churchill and Reagan, the media appears to have downplayed their legacies for just this reason. For example, Time magazine in 1950 named Winston Churchill "Man of the Half-Century" but passed him over at century's end for "Person of the Century", explaining that "...Churchill turned out to be a romantic refugee from a previous era who ended up on the wrong side of history." And Reagan? The news media, which had consistently downplayed him during his presidency, was astonished by the outpouring of public sentiment at his death in 2004 as this showed in spades the esteem in which he was held.
   
   Certainly the verdict of history is not passed immediately on the legacy of statesman; it takes time. Who would have thought in the 1980's, that the name of Ronald Reagan would be uttered in the same sentence as that of Winston Churchill, less than twenty years after the former had left public office? The idea that Churchill was a great man, though not agreed upon by everybody, still seems to be more easily embraced than the idea that Reagan was. But our response to Reagan's death, one of looking back and re-assessing his legacy, surprises us at the warmth we found ourselves feeling for the man. I don't need to read an essay to feel it in my bones that there was something about Ronald Reagan that touched greatness. Steven Hayward (the author) gives some insights into explaining what many of us already believe to be true. He spends most of the 170 page book comparing both men, demonstrating the surprising number of similarities that they had, from their childhoods, to their early liberal inclinations, to their switch to conservative political views, and to how they were perceived at the time. Certainly a common perception of Reagan during his presidency was that he was "uninformed, even ignorant, and relied on simplistic platitudes to get by." But some of Churchill's top aides said the same thing, that Churchill "has only half the picture in his mind, talks absurdities, and makes my blood boil to listen to his nonsense" (Field Marshall Alanbrooke). This is just one of many, many parallels that are listed. We remember that Reagan was charged with being a warmonger. So was Churchill. He alienated himself from many in his own party during the 1930s for his strident warnings of German fascism. In fact, Churchill's "Iron Curtain" speech in 1946 was not received very well and his own government made a point of distancing itself from it. Forty years later, Reagan's "tear down this wall" speech at the Berlin Wall had his own aides fearing that he would only embarrass himself. Even after Reagan's presidency, when the Berlin Wall had in fact come down, and the Soviet Union was no more, some felt that the credit belonged to Gorbachev. Time magazine, in fact, named Gorbachev "person of the decade" in 1990. But I think it is appropriate to ask for Gorbachev's assessment, since his early opinion of Reagan was far from flattering. His presence at Reagan's funeral in 2004, seated next to Margaret Thatcher reinforced his words in 2002 that "I am not sure what happened would have happened had he (Reagan) not been there."
   
   In his Iron Curtain speech Churchill said that World War II could have been prevented "without the firing of a single shot." According to Margaret Thatcher, Reagan brought the cold war to an end "without firing a single shot." Both men believed in peace through strength. Both men doggedly spoke their minds and followed convictions that had not only their political adversaries, but also those in their own party, scratching their heads. Especially regarding what they considered the evil of communism, both men stood alone at times, but history has vindicated them. They were far from perfect, but how many great men are? Arriving at a conclusion of greatness is made even more difficult when the concept of greatness itself in the modern world is called into question. Steven Hayward has done a masterful job of not only allowing us the possibility of considering greatness abstractly, but of applying it to these two remarkable men.



4. Steven Hayward extends his research of Churchill and Reagan to look at comparisons of leadership skills, styles and effectiveness. While the comparisons are interesting, I found it difficult to see the relevance. As a specific comparative analysis, the book brings forward otherwise obscure parallels in the life and times of these two great leaders. The title is misleading in that I found no insights on "the making" of an extraordinary leader. As a book on leadership, Mr. Hayward's work gives examples of Churchill and Reagan leadership, but the work doesn't analyze the leadership examples in a way that the reader could learn leadership tips.
   
   Overall, I found the book interesting, but not terribly relevant.



5. Hayward does a wonderful job in only 170 short pages of describing the similarites between Churchill and Reagan. It is a very quick read and will leave you feeling good about these two men and the accomplishments they achieved while in office.
   
   Hayward makes this statement, "Greatness is ultimately a question of character: Good character does not change with the times: it has eternal qualities." Are there any great leaders with character today? As in the lives of Churchill and Reagan, history will tell.

5 comments about America's Most Hated Woman: The Life And Gruesome Death of Madalyn Murray O'hair.

1. This is a pretty good book on O'Hair's life, although, like another reviewer, I did wonder why there was so much material on her murderer, David Waters. It is likely because the author interviewed him, wanted to used the material in the book, and the information is somewhat relevant to the story. However, it is really hard to read a book about O'Hair and really get a feel for the woman.
   
   There is a radio interview/debate between O'Hair and Walter Martin, a Baptist minister, that occured in 1968 on the Long John Nevel radio show that is very illuminating, if you care to take the time to listen to it. If you go to the Wikipedia entry on Madalyn Murray O'Hair and scroll down to the "external links" section, there is an entry labeled "Baptist minister Walter Martin vs. Atheist Madalyn Murray O'Hair". Click on it, and you'll get the entire three hour radio program in MP3 format. The first hour or so is the interview, and the last two hours is the debate and call-in part of the show.
   
   Listening to this show after reading the book really gives you a feel for the facts presented in the book. For one, O'Hair really shows herself up to be quite the publicist in spite of her claims of not caring what other people think. As the book says, she needed these "other people" as a revenue stream. In this broadcast she claims that she is married to a "Mr. Murray", that he is Roman Catholic, and that both her sons are products of that marriage. Even O'Hair knew that, in 1960's America, most people would be much more willing to accept that she was an atheist than the fact that her sons had two different fathers and that she had never married either of them. She also makes the statement that if her son Bill decided to become a Christian minister that she would accept his decision. 12 years later when this actually happened, she took the attitude that he had commited treason. As the show wears on, O'Hair's end of the debate largely consists of name-calling, bullying, and claiming that "she had read every book Mr. Martin has read twenty years ago". In short, the radio program gives life to the facts presented in the book for those too young to remember what this woman was like in person.
   
   If you want to read a biography of O'Hair, this is probably the one to get since it is the most unbiased and least sensational of the books written on the subject.



2. Ann Rowe Seaman has written another fascinating and captivating masterpiece. It works well in paperback format, but a hard bound edition would have been nice to see as well.
   Ann has a way of drawing the reader into the life circumstances of the persons whom she is writing about. She deserves a Ph.D. for all of her writing efforts.



3. 
   For better and for worse, Ann Seaman's biography is now the definitive account of Madalyn O'Hair's life. Let's start with the worse.
   
   The sensationalistic title might be confused with Jon Rappoport's hack piece. Perhaps O'Hair was America's most hated woman at one time, but Jane Fonda replaced her in the early 1970s, and various feminists and celebrities have since vied for the distinction. "Gruesome death" reveals the climax, implicitly letting reviewers do likewise.
   
   This is yet another biography that starts at the end, with the burial of O'Hair's remains. The device has been done to death, and it never works. I hope that whoever started this trend met a gruesome death similar to O'Hair's. Authors take note; we're born, we live, and THEN we die.
   
   O'Hair's life story is often interrupted by that of her killer David Waters. At one point, I yelled, "Whose bio IS this?" Waters certainly belongs here, but Seaman would better have waited until he entered O'Hair's life to begin his history.
   
   O'Hair's son Bill Murray is quoted throughout this book. Like Waters, he's necessary to the plot, but his Christian agenda requires that he slag atheists, which he enjoys doing through his mother, never mind the Fifth Commandment (does he also preach "family values"?). By taking Murray's alleged "In Hoc Signo Vince" nightmare at face value, Seaman failed to recognize its origin in Eusebius' falsified Constantine biography, thus missing the irony of a Catholic propagandist turning Murray into a Baptist.
   
   Occasional digressions promote Seaman's contention that state and church should commingle. When religion is the topic, opposing viewpoints are forbidden, but when freethought is discussed, religious replies are mandatory: with two exceptions, Seaman adheres to this mainstream dictum. The reader is left to wonder about the author's motives for writing this book.
   
   While Seaman's writing is concise, she sometimes sacrifices clarity. Several threads are left dangling: When the Truth Seeker sued O'Hair and her attorney John Vinson under the RICO act, "Vinson quickly extricated himself, ultimately testifying against her". Two years later, after a scuttled agreement and a mistrial, Vinson was again her attorney. What happened in the meantime? Jon Murray's cellular phone reportedly went dead (meaning disconnected) on September 29, 1995, but "no one answered" it (meaning that it rang) on the following Monday. Exactly what became of the phone isn't revealed. The July 1995 American Atheist newsletter detailing David Waters' criminal history was faxed to Waters. By whom? Another disgruntled former AA employee? O'Hair herself? And with what devastating information did FBI agent Donna Cowling prompt Waters into entering a plea agreement?
   
   Then there are the dozens of errors, including: "Lena even welcomed her daughter's recounting of DEEP THROAT one night after Madalyn had seen it in town." Lena died in 1967: DEEP THROAT premiered in 1972. That conversation didn't happen. "...in next November's U.S. Senate race, Texan Lloyd Bentsen, a conservative Republican, defeated longtime liberal incumbent Ralph Yarborough..." Bentsen was never a Republican; he defeated Yarborough in the 1970 Democratic primary. In November's general election, he defeated Republican George Bush. "David Waters was indicted on the same five counts as Karr had been." One of the counts was different: Karr wasn't charged with interstate transportation of a firearm by a convicted felon. Granted, many of the mistakes are minor, but collectively, they call the book's entire account into question.
   
   In her favor, when Seaman sticks to O'Hair's story, her book is engaging. She comes closer than anyone to understanding O'Hair's behavior: "She learned early the value of being in control when others were not. It so marked her that she eventually sought out or created chaotic conditions so she could feel in control." "...she enjoyed outsmarting people and getting out of scrapes, and the only way to defeat her was either trickery or betrayal. She would navigate hundreds of close calls in her life, and develop an addiction to brinkmanship and even danger."
   
   O'Hair's belligerence is also attributed to her wildly fluctuating insulin dosages; a potentially malfunctioning pituitary is mentioned, as is speculation that she may have been bipolar. Such an unstable individual shouldn't be considered a reliable advocate, yet the press made her the sole atheist representative because she was the perfect bad example.
   
   Seaman has found more details about O'Hair's pre-fame decades than all of her prior biographers combined. One of O'Hair's jobs during World War II was to invent Allied victories for the newswires. From it, she learned a valuable lesson that later served her profitably: "The ability of those in power to manipulate the media, and to lie and get away with it, impressed her." Seaman's assertion that O'Hair "chronically lied about everything" isn't off by much.
   
   During the McCarthy era, O'Hair's inability to hold a steady job generated resentment, which led her to communist circles. She abandoned her communist connections after her notoriety produced a healthy income.
   
   Only two of O'Hair's dozens of lawsuits succeeded. The rest of them (aside from those that harassed former members and ex-employees) strengthened the religious opposition by establishing negative precedents. Seaman confirms that O'Hair used lawsuits primarily as publicity and fund-raising tools.
   
   Seaman's sleuthing results in the most accurate account of the Murray O'Hairs' final days. Allegations of torture were apparently false; murder wasn't planned until one of the kidnappers lost his patience. Seaman also exposes holes in the gold thieves' story.
   
   The book is well written, extensively researched, usually chronological, and probably the most complete and informative account of Madalyn O'Hair we'll see. I'd recommend it, but if it were a car, it would be recalled. Its publisher should cease current production, correct the errors, tie up the loose ends, replace the editorial digressions with facts, limit David Waters to the book's last third, change the beginning, and issue a new edition.
   
   Or not - maybe such a severely flawed woman rates only flawed biographies. I hope this is the last one about O'Hair; atheists deserve better than to be continually smeared by her taint.



4. There aren't many who live their last days in more sensational and mysterious circumstances than Madalyn Murray O'Hair and her family. It is amazing that there hasn't been more attention, although the reason is probably due to the length of time between their disappearance and the discovery of the bodies (as well as the criminal trials). The publicity was victimized by the drawn-out nature of the series of events. The public simply doesn't have an attention span that can accommodate a five year time-frame between events.
   
   But it's now ten years later and all of the facts that we're probably ever going to know are on the table, so it's a great time for anyone curious about the details of the life and death of this tragic family to take an interest in the case.
   
   This is a well-researched book. The author really goes the distance in providing a deep sketch of the Murrays. I found myself detesting them and, at the same time, feeling sorry for them, particularly the children, who seemed incapable of resisting her gravitational pull, and, consequently, never had lives of their own.
   
   My feeling is that Madalyn was never as bad as she pretended to be, but neither was she as good as her supporters thought her. She played a role to two different audiences and pulled the wool over each.



5. Madalyn Murray-O'Hair may not have been an easy woman to understand. Her forceful, often intolerant-seeming personality did not make a good case for herself in the media. Indeed, this book, (one of two having been published) proves how difficult it has been to reassess Mrs. O'Hair's legacy. Whether right or wrong, it is hard to pin-point just exactly where Mrs. O'Hair stopped being an idealist, someone who truly wanted to change society and right some of the wrongs she saw in American culture, and where personal opportunism and megalomania began. One thing is clear: Mrs. O'Hair had ideals! From what I've read about her (and I have most of her published books), she was ahead of her times; her intellect was eclectic, but her interpretations of ideas and current affairs often bordered on the brilliant. Unfortunately, her personality, accentuated by a bad public image, plus her personal life (her son, William Murray, went on to write a tell- all-Christian book) all worked, I think, against the message she tried to communicate.
   
   Most leaders of the freethought movement have been relegated to a side note in history. Ironically, Mrs. O'Hair remains the best known atheist in the world.
   
   As a biography, this book provides a much needed gap about the life of an American historical figure, especially her earlier life. Perhaps, American Atheists should publish a biography about their Founding Matriarch, a biography that will continue to further the dialogue about Mrs. O'Hair's legacy in American life and culture?

2 comments about The Founders' Almanac: A Practical Guide to the Notable Events, Greatest Leaders & Most Eloquent Words of the American Founding.

1. I added this fine work to my library about 4 months ago and already the pages are showing signs of wear. I can't begin to say how many times I have turned to this fine work for a reference source..
   
   Mr. Spalding has put together a very readable sourcebook. The book begins with a calendar of notable events, followed by six outstanding essays on six of America's most notable founders. All six essays come from different authors and each one is equally well written.
   
   The last half of the book is devoted to notable quotations, founding documents and additional resources. The quotes are divided into numerous indexed categories. The documents, such as the Declaration of Independence, have quick reference sidebar notes. You won't regret adding this fine work to your personal library.



2. I added this fine work to my library about 4 months ago and already the pages are showing signs of wear. I can't begin to say how many times I have turned to this fine work for a reference source.
   
   Mr. Spalding has put together a very readable sourcebook. The book begins with a calendar of notable events, followed by six outstanding essays on six of America's most notable founders. All six essays come from different authors and each one is equally well written.

   The last half of the book is devoted to notable quotations, founding documents and additional resources. The quotes are divided into numerous indexed categories. The documents, such as the Declaration of Independence, have quick reference sidebar notes. You won't regret adding this fine work to your personal library.

4 comments about Red Diapers: GROWING UP IN THE COMMUNIST LEFT.

1. -- the story of his life. I grew up small-town in the 50's when communists had horns. These people's childhoods were, compared to mine, like something from another planet. I didn't meet a socialist until I went to college. Looking back:
   1. the risk of internal communist subversion causing an American communist revolution was equal to today's risk of America becoming a moslem state under sharia -- nil. However the USSR was a threat and terrorism is a threat.
   2. the Communist Party USA allowed itself to become merely an arm of Soviet policy
   3. the people in this book and their parents suffered from thuggish and illegal harassment from the US government
   4. but I am very relieved that their political philosophy lost.

   Being idealogs, they avoided any disconfirmatory facts. They were shocked in 1956 when Khrushchev told them that Stalin was a Bad Guy.
   
   Most of the narrators look back with pride and wistfulness. Missing is any apology for supporting a system that caused mass murder, mass starvation, and Gulags.




2. I was assigned this book by an admittedly socialist professor. Perhaps she hoped it would open my eyes to "the people's glorious revolution." In fact, it confirmed in my mind that communists are seriously deluded people. The writers in this book lament their rejection by middle class Americans, seemingly oblivious to the fact that one of the major tenants of communism is the violent destruction of the middle class (I say "violent" because I doubt the middle class would simply relinquish its status when "the glorious revolution occurs). They also bemoan that their first ammendment rights were ignored. The first ammendment was wirtten to allow speech to improve the system. No nation has ever or will ever tolerate speech advocating the destruction of itself and the massacre of its citizens. They should get used to it anyway, as whenever a communist regime takes hold the first thing it does is eliminate free speech. Overall, this book is a worthless collection of narcissistic, revolutionary ramblings, myopic pseudo-history and whining, with no real educational merit at all.



3. This is a unique anthology of memoirs of kids who grew up in the 40's and 50's, in the "pink" shadow of the American Communist Party. Most of the nearly fifty contributors of this book are children of Eastern Jewish immigrants. Here are their fascinating memories: Joyous ones of Pioneer Camp, The Daily Worker, public rallies in support of women, workers, minorities, and disarmament. Fearful recollections of the Rosenberg executions, McCartyism, clandestine CP meetings, FBI surveillance, and the dreaded knock on the door in the middle of the night. Disillusioned remembrances of Khrushchev's denouncement of Stalin and the devastating revelation that "Uncle Joe" and the "Workers' Paradise" of the USSR were not what American Communists naively believed. Few of these writers still belong to the CP. A small number speak resentfully of parents who put the Party before family, exposing their children to bigotry and violence or to the anxiety and deprivation of a life "underground". The Party's over. But the great majority of these writers proudly retain their strong leftist values and ideals, and continue to practice the social activism instilled during childhood. This book gives a human and humane dimension to a misled but often wrongfully vilified American political movement.



4. This highly orginal book did not get the press it deserved when it was first published. It is a collection of brief, yet moving reminiscences written by "red diaper babies" whose parents had a connection -- some more than others -- with the "Movement". It is a definite "must read" for anyone who grew up in the fifties -- whether or not he or she wore red, pink or any other shade of diaper! -- whose parents did not share the prevailing political opinions of the times.