5 comments about The Fitzgeralds and the Kennedys: An American Saga.

1. 
   
   I have a couple other recent books by this author, and coming upon a hardcover copy of THE FITZGERALDS AND THE KENNEDYS at the local Goodwill for .75 cents, how could I lose.
   
   I was in high school when Jack ran for president, and as many others I was for him all the way. Too young to vote, however, and though down through the years of military and college I have continued to have memories of him (he was my commander in chief during those military years) I no longer have 'stars' in my eyes as back then. But I do still admire the practical politician he was, and think had he been allowed to finish his second term this country might be much different than it is.
   
   This book is excellent history and politics as most reviews here will admit, however, I personally do not feel or see the Kennedy family as 'royals' as some put it. Favored family they may have been up to a point, but never royals. Where do people get this feeling? Also, Doris has been given the rap of caring or fawning too much on this family, but my feeling as a sometime writer would be, why write on any subject you dislike. A writer has to have some affinity to the subject being written about, and in many cases, as was recently said of David McCullough when writing JOHN ADAMS that he fell too much in love with his subject. I suppose that is a danger present in any biograpy, but I would rather read a sympathetic, factual bio than a hateful, factual bio. Why bother to write of some figure from history if all you are going to do is trash them due to subjective dislike.
   
   As far as plagarism, who cares in this instance. To loosely paraphrase what Abraham Lincoln said of Grant 'he fights better drunk than my other generals who are all sober. Send him another keg'. So with Doris I say, IF she plagarised, she still writes better history than most other writers. Love her work and the subjects she picks for her work, FDR and Lincoln, especially.
   
   Having had a mother who claimed to be Irish (now deceased) and an Irish wife (very much alive) I am glad to have this book in my home library; maybe on a lesser historical plane I can learn something of practical daily use from this large book. Hah!
   
   Semper Fi.



2. Another book I bought for my wife's birthday from Amazon. My wife is an ardent reader and enjoys Doris Kearns Goodwin. My wife loves to read about all different types of people. In fact she is on the back porch now reading a book. This book was in excellent shape and the supplier shipped the book right away, and for a reasonable price.
   Thank You, William D. English



3. Dr. Goodwin writes wonderfully about American politics, the Irish Catholic immigration and integration into the polical landscape of Boston, and two families, both with terrific strengths and well noted weaknesses. The writing on Rose Fitzgerald and Joe Kennedy, Sr are particularly good. One gets a visceral feel of destiny as the desire to succeed, almost at any cost, throughout her well researched and written work. Much has been written about "plagarism" or a lack of proper footnoting (corrected in the paperback edition). I would encourage all potential readers to not allow such an unfortunate circumstance in her many years of teaching and writing to get in the way of reading this important piece of U.S. history. This book is a well researched and incredibly well written and readable account of immigration, politics and the rise of 19th Century immigrant families to economic, social and political prominence.



4. I was thoroughly enthralled, gripped and engaged in this story of three generations of the Fitzgeralds and the Kennedys. The story begins in 1863 with the baptism of John Francis Fitzgerald in Boston and concludes almost 100 years later with the inauguration of John Fitzgerald Kennedy. The families' roots are traced back to the great immigration following the Irish potato famine in the 1840's. From immigration to becoming the American royal family in just three generations is a remarkable achievement that is chronicled in fascinating detail in this comprehensive, definitive narrative.
   
   Even though it is more than 800 pages, the book is not a dry history text, but rather an intriguing glimpse into the lives of the charmed and sometimes tragic lives of this huge Irish Catholic clan. Nothing is omitted, from the affairs of Joseph Kennedy, to the flirtations of Kathleen, the appalling lobotomy of Rosemary, and the sexual antics of John F. Kennedy. The political shenanigans of the elder Fitzgerald provide an interesting examination of Boston politics in the early 1900's...rife with graft and insider manipulation.
   
   The author's writing style is rich, powerful and mesmerizing. For instance, to describe the ascent of JFK into the limelight of American politics, she writes: "For his capacity to arouse the questing imagination of his fellow citizens, and of much of the world beyond America's borders, was to elevate the family saga past the borders of mythology. By the beginning of the fifties he already contained all the elements which his leadership was to be compounded, forged in tumultuous experience, anchored and given direction by his often resented but always unbreakable links to his extraordinary family."
   
   The level of detail and insightful analysis into the complex characters and relationships in the family is well worth your investment of time in reading this tome. A book you won't soon forget.



5. this is the best book about the kennedys.
   it'svery complete. the book ends when jack becomes president, i hope she will write a follow-up. there are a lot of rares photos.
   she's tells us mainly about the golden trio( jack, joejr and kathleen).
   i suggest all the fans of the kennedys to buy it.

5 comments about The Voice of Hope: Updated and Revised Edition.

1. Now in an expanded second edition including an interview with U Gambira (a leader of the All-Burma Monks Alliance that organized the protests of September and October 2007), The Voice of Hope: Aung San Suu Kyi Conversations with Alan Clements is an extensive interview with Aung San Suu Kyi, the Nobel Peace Laureate, mother of two, and practicing Buddhist who led the pro-democracy movement in Burma in 1988. The movement was harshly crushed by the military junta that renamed Burma as Myanmar. Alan Clements, the first American ordained as a Buddhist monk in Burma, met with Aung San Suu Kyi after her release from her first house arrest in July 1995. She delivered her perception of engaged compassion and spoke of how she maintained her hope and optimism despite continued governmental oppression. "You must not forget that the people of Burma want democracy. Whatever the authorities may say, it is a fact that the people want democracy and they do not want an authoritarian regime that deprives them of their basic human rights. The world should do everything possible to bring about the kind of political system that the majority of the people of Burma want and for which so many people have sacrificed themselves." A singularly powerful and also deeply spiritual testimonial on behalf of a troubled nation.



2. In this book, as in "Freedom from Fear" and "Letters from Burma", Nobel Peace Prize laureate Aung San Suu Kyi exposes to the world the grim realities of her land and her people, seen through her very eyes. As always, she is able to jump with great ability from more personal and sentimental accounts of the situation, to hard data, from recollections of her childhood, to perspectives on Burma's future. Always filled with thrill and dense with emotions, her writings are for the expert and the ignorant alike, easy to understand, yet of high value historically and academically. For anyone wishing to know more about Burma and the struggle of her people for human rights, this is must reading.



3. I have always been fascinated by Burma in all its aspects and I wanted to be more informed on the current political and social situations. The subject is certainly very interesting but I personally found the book itself very boring and repetitive: The concepts and ideas are repeated dozens of times in different chapters, over and over again. This book would have been much more powerful and appealing with 100 pages instead of 300.



4. This book shocked me awake to the realities of countries where freedom is not enjoyed as in the United Sates. The government's repression and horrific inhumantiy are just unbelievable. But, more amazing is the dedication to nonviolence which Aung San Suu Kyi and her party follow in their democracy movement. Her manner in speaking of Burma's serious situation is so calm, hopeful, and loving that it makes one reinterpret and recast their interactions with their own worlds. One may also reflect on one's place in humanity and see that Burma's tragedy, Burma's fate, is our own and we must act now. Aung San's hope and strength are qualities we would do well to adopt as our own. I do not think it is possible for one to read this book and NOT feel urged to take some form of real action (via letter writing, publicizing the issue, etc).



5. I have been intrigued with the situation in Burma since watching the movie Beyond Rangoon some time ago. It was therefore with great interest that I ordered this book as soon as it was available. In "The Voice of Hope" Alan Clements brings us into the present with this tragic situation through the person of Aung San Suu Kyi and her incredible life. But what sets this work apart from histories, biographies, and oddly enough even self-help material - is the powerful integration of beliefs and action found in Aung San Suu Kyi's life and philosophy. In reading chapter seven alone, ("Saints are Sinners who go on trying") I was personally and deeply moved by the clear connectedness described between her experience with a repressive government and the need for thinking people everywhere to courageously fulfil our potential as thinking, "questing" individuals. The repressive government in Burma is shown to be an extreme and yet still relevant metaphor for intellectual repression in all its forms. And Aung San Suu Kyi's message offers specific insight together with believable emotional support for those who struggle to reconcile what we discover and know through our own searching with what we are expected to believe by others. If it helps anyone who is deciding whether this book is worth the money - I can only say that as one who buys and reads more than 100 books a year - this book has earned a unique place in my library and in my heart. I would trade every other book I have read this year for Alan Clements' latest contribution. Thank you.

5 comments about William McKinley (The American Presidents).

1. I have read 18 of the books in this series, and this one is by far the least satisfying. Most of the other volumes maintain a balance between the personal life of the president, and his administration and policies. Phillips leans so heavily in the latter direction that I hardly felt I knew anything about the man himself. And can you imagine a book about an assassinated president that contains NO ACCOUNT of the actual crime, and not even a mention of the assassin? Phillips was too busy trying to raise McKinley's sagging reputation (especially in relation to his successor, TR) to give us more details about his life, family, and untimely death. I learned a lot about tariffs, the gold standard, and our relationship with Britain, but not much about McKinley.



2. Kevin Phillips is an odd choice to author a biography on Republican William McKinley but not a surprising selection given that Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. is the general editor of this presidential series. The author is a former Republican who worked in the Nixon administration and, like many Nixonians, grew disillusioned with the party and chose to serve penance as a far-left commentator for NPR and other leftist organizations.
   
   The author pursues a thesis that elevates McKinley to the rank of Near Great presidents as judged by occasional polls of historians (polls championed originally by Schlesinger's father, a progressive professor at Harvard who selected fellow progressives to rank the presidents with the unsurprising result that progressive presidents topped the list, ipso facto).
   
   With his bifurcated background, the author denounces McKinley's "middle class" heritage and views, instead touting a hidden progressivism the author espies in McKinley that coulda, woulda, shoulda emerged had only the president not been assassinated. The entire argument is off-mark not only because the author attempts to rebrand McKinley as a liberal progressive but also because recent polls of historians are no longer skewed completely to progressives and have already elevated McKinley, which is the cause célèbre of this biography (i.e. the two most recent polls both list McKinley at #14 all time, which is the rough position the author champions). The author's passion for developing this thesis is the reason that some reviewers lament that the second half of the book is less a biography and more a disjointed argument that McKinley is really a progressive.
   
   As a youth, the author developed an affinity for McKinley. While a member of the Nixon administration, the author shared many values with McKinley but, once he grew older, the author identified with progressives. In this book the author has attempted to translate his own philosophical journey to McKinley. I was not convinced by the argument but then I believe it is fatuous to hold that a president needs to be progressive to be considered successful.
   
   For those interested in McKinley or Teddy Roosevelt, the book is a decent introduction. The author does a good job painting a portrait of the culture and times that forged McKinley. The writing, especially in the beginning when he explores McKinley's Ohio heritage, Civil War service, and initial foray into politics, is well-crafted. Also, the author does an excellent job explaining why the Republicans pursued tariff protections so vigorously during this time period - a position at odds with the party today but understandable given the context of an emerging industrial nation.
   
   Bottom-line: I recommend the book for a quick read given the caveats detailed above but note that the second half of the book is more of a dive into the psyche of the author than an overview of the president.



3. This is yet another entry into The American Presidents series of brief biographies, under the general editorship of Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. One of the more intriguing facets of this series is the sometime use of eminent authors. Here, Kevin Phillips, a political commentator who once projected a Republican majority, writes an interesting work on McKinley, to some extent a political essay as much as a biography. His contention is that McKinley was one of the few really top notch presidents from Lincoln's assassination to FDR's service.
   
   The book argues that McKinley's rise in politics--from the Ohio state political world to president--was largely self-orchestrated. That he took control over his political ambitions (and was not a mere puppet of Mark Hanna, his key political operative later in his political career).
   
   Earlier in the book, his family background is described as is his solid service in the Union Army during the Civil War (indeed, he served with Rutherford Hayes, another American president--and another Ohioan).
   
   As his political career developed, Phillips argues that his political views were more "enlightened," for want of a better term, than many of his Republican peers. He had some sympathy and provided some support for workers; he seemed to have recognized the value of blacks and women having political rights; he exhibited a much more nuanced view of tariffs than standard pro-capitalist Republicans.
   
   When he became president there was one new aspect to his administration--no owing political bosses Cabinet positions and so on; some predecessors were hamstrung by deals made with party leaders in order to gain the office. His defeat of Bryan in the critical 1896 election helped realign politics. Phillips argues that there was another realignment--of America's international role after 1896, presided over by McKinley.
   
   All in all, an interesting take on McKinley as a person and as president. I think that Phillips does make a case that McKinley, while not a great president, might well be ranked as near great. One can be critical of McKinley's imperialism, illustrated by the Philippines and Hawaii. But he laid the groundwork for Teddy Roosevelt's presidency (indeed, Phillips says that Roosevelt's presidency needs to be coupled with McKinley's for something like a McKinley-Roosevelt extended administration from 1897-1909). At any rate, a useful short biography of William McKinley. A strong addition to the series.



4. I was very disappointed by this book. As someone who didn't know much about McKinley, I read it with the aim of finding out all the basics about him - who he was, what he did, how he died. Yet after reading it I feel like I know little more than before.
   
   The entire book seems to be written as a rebuttal of other biographers' lackluster opinions of McKinley. Liberally interspersed throughout the narrative are refutations of supposedly popular beliefs about McKinley, from his education to his influence on his successor, Teddy Roosevelt. This would probably appeal to someone who has read several books on the topic, but it is a strange pick for the American Presidents series, which should be a basic primer for the uninitiated. The book says little about what specifics McKinley accomplished in his presidency, says little about the Spanish American War, and says nothing about his assassination, except for where it happened. I feel like I now have to go and look him up on Wikipedia to find the information that was not included in this book. If you are not already quite familiar with the topic, I'd recommend reading something else on the subject first.



5. Kevin Phillips has been a political and economic commentator for more than 30 years, and written many books. William McKinley was elected to two terms and avoided any major scandals. America became a world power in his terms. McKinley was the best of the seven Ohio-born presidents. McKinley's reputation declined after 1932 with the changes in tariffs, the gold standard, and the power of corporations. Phillips lists six beliefs about McKinley that he calls "calumnies" (p.4). McKinley's inscrutability, avoidance of written commitments, and oratorical style shows "great political skill" says Phillips (p.5). McKinley was a progressive Republican (p.6) and deserves a better reputation. McKinley's children died young, his wife developed epilepsy (p.25). [This book lacks a map of Ohio in McKinley's times.]
   
   Chapter 1 tells about Ohio and William McKinley. After the Civil War McKinley became a lawyer and entered politics. Chapter 2 describes a Modern McKinley. He was sold "like soap" in 1896 (p.30). Victrola records passed on speeches. He was the first president to visit California. The first permanent national labor union (printers) and the AFL started in Ohio, so did the United Mine Workers (p.32). McKinley defended striking coal miners in 1876. Tariffs kept American wages high (p.37). McKinley refused to profit from his political policies (p.39). The tariff questions of revenue and protection were recurring political issues (p.43). Then came the issue of silver currency (pp.51-52). Phillips explains the interests behind the conflicts.
   
   McKinley was popular with the party rank and file, and was nominated on the first ballot. The many recessions affected voting for Congress (p.64). Phillips doesn't mention the reason for Bryan's many campaign stops (p.75). It was to talk directly to the voters. Major northern cities backed McKinley (p.77). There were similarities between Bryan and McKinley (p.83). McKinley's term saw America become a world power (p.87). [This seems a little premature.] There was an entente with Britain. Expansionism was an American tradition (pp.88-89). The naval victories at Manila Bay and Santiago Cuba helped McKinley's popularity (p.96). It was a short and successful war. The Platt Amendment kept Germany out of Cuba (p.105). The annexation of Hawaii was to keep Japan out (p.106). Fear of Germany affected Britain's politics. McKinley's plans for tariff reciprocity died with him (p.123). McKinley intended to recommend an income tax (p.124). McKinley was friendly with labor (p.125). McKinley's cabinet continued with Theodore Roosevelt (p.127). McKinley had introduced Granger resolutions (p.128). Roosevelt enacted the Elkins Act and the Hepburn Act. There were threats to nationalize the coal mines and steel industry (p,129). McKinley enacted an arbitration system in Ohio. McKinley also began the naval increase (p.132).
   
   Chapter 6 concludes the reconsideration. Senators were chosen by state legislatures and were against progressive legislation (p.135). McKinley's assassination prevented him from achieving his political objectives (p.136). McKinley sought affection and popularity, but this was mistaken for weakness (p.138). McKinley's strength was shown by his running the State Department and the War Department (p.139). [Or did he put men there who he could override?] Those who knew him admired him (p.140). McKinley's thinking was formed by the Radical Republicans (p.141). Politics changed with the theories of Herbert Spencer (p.142). Phillips compares McKinley to Lincoln or FDR (pp.156-157), but admits McKinley was a "near great". This short chapter explains why. [McKinley's portrait was on the $500 bill, I think it should be re-issued.]

5 comments about The Family: The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty.

1. This is a Wicked and delicious (mostly true in my opinion) biography of the Bush "Dynasty". Kitty gets it right on the mark on many things. The Audio edition which I had the pleasure of reviewing was most especially captivating.



2. I read this book through 2 times. It is astounding how many people have lied and cheated to protect our present top man in government and the former family members. I remember seeing Kitty on CNN one time to promote her book and then the Bush people must have gotten through to all other venues of promotion. She was not on any more that I saw. The "people" saw to that!! In fact, she was fired from her job as a result of the book. But no one sued her for libel, because she is so thorough in researching her facts. Prior to this book, I never realized how much bad things happen in politics and coverups. This gal tells it as it is.



3. This should be required reading for Americans of voting age. Well researched and clearly written, the book relies on reliable sources that, for the most part, maintain Kelley's objectivity. Although a reasonably well informed individuaI, I now realize that I have been quite naive regarding political ruthlessness.



4. My expectations were low. I never read a Kitty Kelley book before, so it's clear that her critics had done their work on me. While some sour grapes relatives had their say, the book had far more meat than I expected. There was plenty of written record, and the all so telling sealed and missing records.
   
   Kelley's presentation about the Bush intra-Family, Bush-Yale, Bush-Reagan Bush-Republican Party, relationships etc. provided the glue for putting the missing pieces of the family story together. Now I know why Bush 41 had the succession of unrelated gov. positions before he ran with Reagan. Every family has black sheep and secrets, but within this family, the stories of these relatives and their excommunication from the family are extreme. There is a lot of food for thought on how family dynamics over 3 generations have spurred political ambition.
   
   New to me, was that upon election Bush 41 was worth only $2 million. I thought they were far richer than this. They may be now, Bush 43 made $15 million alone capitalizing on the family name/contacts to get taxpayers to fund his baseball team. Kelley says almost nothing on the family relations with the Saudis.
   
   Kelley tackled 3 generations and did a competent job. There is plenty of unexplored turf for the next biographers.



5. 
   Beneath tons of minutia and irrelevant details that often border on mere salacious family gossip, a clear picture of the Bush family, its code of honor, code of ethics and family dynamics, does eventually emerge. The Bush formula for success consisted mostly of parlaying meager individual talents, an ability to maneuver on the outer edges of morality, a penchant for winning at all costs, and punching the right social tickets, into a coveted entry into the most envied of inner social and economic circles.
   
   According to the author, sucking up to those higher up the social ladder, and giving expression to this sycophancy by exhibiting whenever necessary, a willingness to make deep moral turns in the road, (a theme also repeated in Russell S. Bowen's "Immaculate Deception") became the family's number one business practice and eventually its clearest ethical signature. Sycophancy and questionable business practices not only proved to be the most reliable hook for ascending the proverbial social ladder (well beyond a rung that their talents and family code of ethics alone would have otherwise entitled them to), but also served as a way of consolidating their power and position once they arrived. Kelly argues that this weak moral template continues to work for the Bush family even into the present generation.
   
   Once gaining a foothold somewhere nearer the top of the food chain and having done so literally by hook or crook, the Bushes then perfected the art of holding on to their illicitly gained status: Display all of the outward signs of moral rectitude, while just behind the scenes, engage in the most ruthless of bare-knuckled business and ethical practices. In short, at every turn, demonstrate that you are willing to use up all of the family's moral capital in order to sustain the family's social status.
   
   Tempered by the uncertainty of the depression, and the precariousness inherent in living above ones own intellectual and moral station, the Bushes understandably were always terrified of being discovered as the social and economic frauds they saw themselves as. This palpable inner fear helped shape their worldview, animated family dynamics and contributed to most of the family's deviant behavior, which from time-to-time included alcoholism and latter on some sporadic drug use.
   
   The author implies that the Bushes might still be suffering from a kind of "survivor's guilt" of knowing full well that talent-wise they have never quite measured up to others in their lofty inner circles. Thus most of their lives have been dedicated to self-justification -- proving to themselves that they are deserving of the many unearned and often unethical entitlements they have received.
   
   However, it must be said in passing that compared to the stories of others of this ilk, who like the Bushes, have also clawed and scratched their way to the top of the food chain (the Kennedy's would be another good case in point), there is nothing strikingly out of the ordinary about the Bush family.
   
   Plus, I can think of nothing negative to say about a family that can turn an utter un-redeeming family black sheep into the President of the USA. They must have been doing something right. Amen.
   
   A good read; another classic American story told well: five stars.

5 comments about Michael Collins: The Man Who Made Ireland.

1. Excellent book, very well written in the usual "Coogan" way, that is, skilfull, fluent and full of nice anecdotes. Gives an insightful portrait of one of Ireland's greatest men and my personal favourite. Eireann go brach!



2. An informative humanizing biography that provides a good picture of revolutionary Ireland. More photogrpahs would have made for 5 stars.



3. I recommend this book to anyone who wants an intense indepth study of Collins and Ireland of his time. This is easy to read and full of interesting information about the man and those around him. Collins was a genius who shaped the fate of modern Ireland and did so with an acute sense of how far he wcould go to achieve what he wanted.
   
   It really makes me wonder how much better off Ireland would have been if he had not best lost so early in his life.



4. This is an extarodinary book about an extraordinary man. It is well wriiten, it is exciting and easy to read. It gives a wonderful insight into the life and times of Ireland during this remarkable time



5. Although the pages and the sophisticated writing style might intimidate one, if you stick to it and read the book to the end, you will NOT regret it. It was my first book in Irish History and I have learned so much from reading it. This book is amazing beyond words. If you buy it, you won't reget it.

5 comments about Scheisshaus Luck: Surviving the Unspeakable in Auschwitz and Dora.

1. Unfortunately, I lost this book before finishing it. So I can only comment on what I was able to read.
   
   I'll state up front that I believe almost all Holocaust memoirs should be read, and this one is no exception. There's very few memoirs out there by non-Jews and thus, makes this one extremely important. Although, if Berg had analyzed what made his experience different from the Jews in the camp it would be a much more important book.
   
   Berg seems to agree with Primo Livi that surviving was just by mere chance. But, perhaps unconsciously, he also seems to show that keeping one's humanity is critical to not succumbing to the myriad of ways one can die in Auschwitz, just like Livi put forward in one of his books.
   
   I didn't find the crude language all that upsetting. The things Berg saw were horrible, and sometimes there's not a nice way to describe certain events or ideas. One must also remember that the original version was a diary and thus, Berg's intimate thoughts.
   
   I'll definitely purchase the book so I can fully read the book again.



2. Pierre Berg's autobiographical novel is the account of an eighteen year old concentration camp inmate. Pierre was arrested as a political prisoner for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. In 1943 he picked the wrong time to visit his friend's house and was detained by the Gestapo. Berg's constant struggles, countless escapes from death, exhaustive labor, near starvation, and his endurance of inhumane conditions keep the reader fearfuly engrossed in his story. I recommend this novel, though graphic at times, as a frank account of a horrible event in Mr. Berg's life.



3. I've never really read a biography of someone who has been on the inside of a concentration camp.
   
   The book is so graphically detailed, that this is not for the faint of heart.
   
   One of the chilling things about the book is that the author need to relive many of the details of this horror story to provide them to te writer.
   
   Since the author spoke 3 languages and had some tradesman skills, it improved his chances for survival.
   Without those skills, I dread to think about how quickly his demise might have happened.
   
   This is a story of true human spirit and survival.
   
   It's absolutely amazing at what this person overcame to simply remain alive.
   
   I recommend the book as a story of human triiumph but intense sadness.



4. Pierre Berg is a genuine survivor not just from the prison camps in German occupied areas of Europe but in surviving a living death every day. He was not a Jew, but anyone close to Jews by association or being in the wrong place at the wrong time when the Nazi's and their associates saw them, was branded in their minds as the same as Jews. Berg has no idea how he survived the war when most of his friends had not made it. Some made it to prison camps but could not survive the horrible treatment in the camps or, in many cases they were in the "wrong" group and were "selected" by the Nazi's and sent right to the crematorium. Those "selected" were generally older and/or weaker and did not give a strong appearance to the ones directing human traffic when they arrived at the camps on a train or in trucks.
   
   The citizens of France and surrounding nations did all they could to hide or run from the Nazi's but eventually they were tracked down, given work of various nasty jobs, and eventually sent to one of the prison camps where the work got even worse. Their transportation generally was in railroad cattle cars where they were packed in like sardines with no room to lay down or even, in most cases, sit. They had to relieve themselves as they stood so we can imagine the stench of those cars. Also as food and water ran out, some became sick and eventually died or were thrown out of the cars when almost dead.
   
   For anyone today to say the Holocaust did not take place, all they dare need to do is read this book. There are several other books I have read that were written very well but this has by far the best description of what actually occurred to the prisoners of the Nazi's. They were given various colored arm bands telling all whether they were Jews, political prisoners, German prisoners, or one of many other various categories. Sometimes those that were not Jews were given better jobs but in general, the only "better" jobs were given to the prisoners that were selected by the Germans as a leader--at least for a while!
   
   Peter Berg's existence as he was either marched or taken by train or truck through several prison camps is an indescribable personal miracle. Surviving through such miserable conditions of disease, no food or spoiled food, no healthy water, no warm clothes or shoes, sleeping in the same cot as a sick or dead person, and never knowing if you were going to be selected for a beating or a job you couldn't handle kept all of the prisoners on edge. Even the ones that were selected to lead the various groups never knew if they would be dead or alive the next minute.
   
   Peter Berg made some friends as he went along but most disappeared or died before they could know each other well enough to trust. The few that did exist helped each other as far as they were allowed. There were times when some leaders subjected the prisoners to sexual attacks as well as by the Nazi's themselves. Disease ran rampant in all the camps; some sexual diseases had many other normally preventative sicknesses that were not treated.
   
   You will not believe ANY human could endure what went on through the author's eyes but he did survive to write this book years after the war ended and he was freed. He was very reluctant to write this all down but when Brian Brock read the original notes and partial manuscripts, Peter decided he would help the entire world by letting them know what occurred during that terrible period during which he was imprisoned in a "death camp."



5. In the Preface to his story, Pierre Berg writes, "All I can give you, I hope . . . is an understanding of what it was like to be an able-bodied teenager torn from family, friends, and home, tossed into a Nazi death camp, and nearly reduced to what the Nazis considered all of us who were tattooed, . . . subhuman."
   
   Berg, an eighteen-year-old French Gentile, carries through on his promise, taking the reader through the Grand Guignol Theatre of the Real. He does not philosophize, call on God for help (he is an atheist), or attempt to reason out the reasons for the Holocaust. Rather, he credits his survival to scheisshaus luck--s--thouse in English--and I believe he was right.
   
   Berg's arrest by a suspicious Gestapo officer led to a designation of political prisoner and a trip to Auschwitz III-Monowitz--a labor camp for the gigantic I.G. Farben chemical factories. While Monowitz had no ovens, hundreds of prisoners died from the back breaking work, exposure to the freezing cold and wind, severe malnutrition, disease, bullets to the head, and hanging for minor infractions. The bodies were loaded onto trucks and sent to Auschwitz II-Birkenau's crematoriums, the ashes then used to fertilize the Polish cabbage fields.
   
   Berg made it through an eighteen-month odyssey through hell using his wits, his ability to speak four or five languages, and scheisshaus luck. Two years after his liberation he wrote down all of his experiences while they were still fresh in his mind. In 2001, more than fifty years after the fact, Berg met his co-writer Brian Brock in the Cannon Theatre in Beverly Hills: Berg was an usher, Brock was at the concession stand, and I wonder if it was scheisshaus luck that brought these two employees together. Their goal was to preserve the voice of a young Berg, and I think they were successful.

5 comments about Blowing My Cover: My Life as a CIA Spy.

1. I was really torn between a two or a three on this one. I stuck with the two. I will start with the good side. Lindsay has a refreshing writing style. Her wit makes it a fun read. But this is not the biography of an intelligence insider. Moreover, such a person would never write a book like this. With the exception of some descriptive details about the CIA bootcamp (which appears to be about as challenging as the boot camp phase of any of our nation's military academies), there was not a whole lot of new information to be found. And much like the rookie cadet who may have gotten more than she bargained for, Lindsay finds herself out of her element but manages to pull through. My sympathy level is low. While she complains about being sleep deprived, as occurs in many real military training scenarios, she and her buddies prefer to make prank calls rather than grab a cat nap in the corner. She comes across as a debutante in boot camp. I would recommend this book as a primer to anyone who is considering (seriously or not) applying to the CIA. But anyone who is looking for inside information on the workings, procedures, or techniques of the Agency should look elsewhere. In fact, they may not even be available in any unclassified form.



2. Quirky autobiography of Ivy League overachiever's venture into the CIA sometimes borders on pretentious and annoying, but the writer's self-deprecating sense of humor and humility keeps it grounded.
   
   As a case officer, she recruits foreigners to provide information, not actually spying herself, a distinction which erases Moran's fiction-driven misconceptions while raising ethical dilemmas about providing money and other inducement to convince desperate people to rat on their own countries.
   
   In the end, the failure of the CIA to detect, predict, or prevent September 11, and the unwillingness of the CIA to redirect its activities in the aftermath, drive Moran to realize the purposelessness of the dislocation of her whole life for this career. Hence, her leaving, and this book, the second I have read recently which tell a similar story from different gender and personality standpoints (see review of Overworld: The Life and Times of A Reluctant Spy by Larry J. Kolb). In fact, in retrospect, Moran's more matter-of-fact telling confirms the essential truth of Larry Kolb's overwrought story.



3. I've read a few non fiction spy novels, and this by far, had to be the worst one; I kept on waiting for the action to occur, but it never did; probably the most interesting part of the book is towards the end, when the author talks about how she and colleagues felt about 9/11. Normally I can read a book in a day or a week, but this one took me over a month as the story was not captivating enough for me; as far as being a funny book, I did laugh a couple of times about the eastern european lifestyle, as it brought me back a few memories of the homeland living. I must admit that at least the author is honest enough to admit that taxpayer money is being wasted in following dead leads.



4. I am fascinated by the split reviews here. They read like a David Brooks column on what is dividing America.
   
   I am on the "fan" side of this book. Mainly because the book is honest, and what else counts? She could have easily have written a book that tries to make herself look better, or read like a scholarly assessment of the CIA, but there are plenty such books and such scholarship. Perhaps that is what some of the readers were expecting, but you have to, in my mind, judge a book by what it was trying to do. She was trying to give an honest account of her life in the CIA, and that's what you get. If she was thinking about who she wanted to date - well, people do actually spend time thinking about that kind of thing.
   
   The people who think they are better prose stylists that Lindsay Moran are free to have their preferences but are obviously over their heads. She may not be Nabakov but the prose has a light flow and gentle honesty. As most readers remarked, they read the book in a single sitting. Writing that kind of prose is actually alot harder than it looks. Try it sometime.
   
   My criticism, if that is what it is, is that the book really is a bit too light, a CIA croissant of sorts. I suspect the publishers and the editors had a role in this - they have too much a tendency to shove books into categories, and here Devil Wears Prada and similar books were probably in mind. Like some, I would have liked a little more analysis or insight into actually reforming the CIA -- it all is shoved in at the end, and far too quickly.
   
   But then again roughly its all there for you to figure out: too much spending on wasteful projects, too much of the means replacing the ends (like the number of agents being taken as more important that quality), and too much ease of manipulation by the Administration.
   
   Finally as for those who this Lindsay was disloyal or unappreciative, she is honest: she could easily have made more money and had much more freedom in various other careers. Since when is wanting to go to fun parties in your 20s unnatural or a sign that you're a bad person? Last time I checked James Bond made it to plenty of parties --
   
   In fact from this book it seems to me obvious the CIA will have trouble recruiting independent thinkers and some of the most talented people in the U.S. given how unattractive the job is, comparatively.



5. Oh lordy. That book was bad. Really, really bad. It's taken me a week to stop gnashing my teeth over the fact that anyone can get a book deal if they have a semblance of a story in which the mouth-breathing masses will be interested.
   
   She's a *horrible* writer! No amount of repeating that her Harvard professor told her she'd be doing public service by writing will change that. Nuggets of gold that just drove me nuts include lines such as "The singing, dancing, and hugging multicolored creatures were incongruous, not to mention distracting" or "I half expected to find a flask of Jack Daniels in my own butt crack when I went to bed that night." I'd like to point out the use of the word "incongruous" is incongruous in that sentence! (She was talking about Teletubbies.)
   
   But worse than the bad prose was the terrible structure. Granted, memoirs are difficult to write. And I can only guess that writing them about an something that you need to be somewhat circumspect about can be tricky. But there were gaping flaws in the actual structure. Take, for example, the "nemesis" in the book, Jin Suk. "...I became JS's unwilling nemesis, our polar personalities simultaneously drawing us together and pushing us apart."
   
   Ah ha! I thought when I read this sentence. Now, finally, the conflict will begin. There will be some interesting dialog. Some descriptive language about the psyche of other people. A give and take between two characters. However, the payout never comes. In order for the author to be the unwilling nemesis, she must be someone who cannot be bested or overcome. That would assume that JS is trying to overcome the author. I expect to see fierce competition, hand-to-hand combat, girl fights in the middle of the night in the bathroom. But JS isn't like this. And the relationship, if there even is one, isn't such that even a nasty comment is made.
   
   The author reference's JS driving off the road into a ditch, but not trying to drive the author off the road. She describes JS as going into a meditative state under a tree, another time. Doesn't seem too awful to me. In the end, the author doesn't best JS--she finishes second to her. And later, JS sends a friendly letter to the author, who treats it with sarcasm and disdain.
   
   In the end, the author can only describe JS as "sitting as though she has a teacup on her head." I misread it, however, and thought she said that JS *HAD* a teacup on her head. "Now that's just going too far!" I thought to myself, "It's ridiculous that this perfectly normal person would have a teacup on her head!"
   
   The author sets us up to believe she's going to be someone who can't help excelling beyond her classmate, and that the classmate will be nasty and snarly about it. In all truth, JS is the author's unwilling nemesis. JS seems not to notice the author's jealousy--or, if she does, she doesn't respond to it.
   
   Throughout the book we see just how immature the author is. "I have a hard job and I miss my private life of boozing and carousing, wah!" she seems to complain throughout. Instead of behaving like a mature adult learning how to seriously work towards securing knowledge, she whines about not being able to do what most kids did during their college years. Seriously--she sounds like I did when I was 22!
   
   Anyway, it was a rotten book. It was only because I was sick in bed that I finished it. I figured if I was throwing up anyway, I might as well read it.

5 comments about Abraham Lincoln: Redeemer President (Library of Religious Biography).

1. This is fine biography traces Lincoln's philosphical and theological development and in so doing helps us understand the secret to Lincoln's greatness, which was his ability to make sense of the Civil War. If you ever wondered where the Gettysburg Address and Lincoln's Second Innaugral came from, this book will show you. This remains one the most interesting and compelling biographies I have ever read.
   
   Raymond R. Roberts Ph.D.



2. A breath-taking account of the life of one of America's greatest leaders. Lincoln's though and personality are an inspiration and a challenge to any thoughtful person. This book inspired me to a greater study of American history.



3. Biographies of Abraham Lincoln have tended to fall into two broad categories. The first category consists of biographies of the "subjective" Lincoln. These biographies are based largely on the many anecdotes and stories people told about Lincoln's life, typically during the early years in Illinois and concentrate on trying to explore Lincoln as a man (He remains an enigma.)The second category of Lincoln biography is the political. This biography focuses on Lincoln's public actions, typically during or shortly before his Presidency and draws on the lengthy public record available during the Civil War years. This type of biographical approach tends to give short shrift to the personal approach.

   In his "Abraham Lincoln, Redeemer President" Allen Guelzo points out these two approaches to Lincoln studies (p.472) and says that his book is an attempt to combine the personal and public approaches to Lincoln. Professor Guelzo, Dean of Templeton Honors Colledge and Professor of History at Eastern Universtiy, writes a primarily intellectual biography; but he tries to explore the degree to which Lincoln's thought formed his political actions.

   Professor Guelzo devotes a great deal of attention to establishing Lincoln's political identity as a whig -- an admirer of both Henry Clay and Daniel Webster. From his early days in public life, Lincoln was interested in promoting economic opportunity by encouraging the free market. He supported ambitious programs of public works and public education, to develop transportation infrastructure, (canals, roads, and railroads) and to promote the growth of industry and of a middle class. The whig approach emphasized public virtue, public morality, the value of hard work, and a unified United States. Guelzo effectively contrasts Lincoln's Whiggish beliefs with the agrarian beliefs of the Jefferson-Jacksonian democrats with their commitment to a nation of agrarian, self-sufficient yeomen and farmers. (Lincoln's father was such a yeoman, and Lincoln wanted none of it for himself.)

   Professor Guelzo traces the beginnings of Lincoln's opposition to the expansion of slavery, in the early 1850's. to his desire to promote the development of upwardly mobile capitalist workers. He tended to see agrarianism as slavery slightly disguised. Lincoln never lost his whig commitments, according to Professor Guelzo, even after the party disbanded and Lincoln became a leader of the Republican party.

   Professor Guelzo also studies the nature of Lincoln's religious beliefs and the importance Lincoln gave to religous questions. As is the case with Lincoln's economic rebellion against his father, Professor Guelzo finds the beginnings of Lincoln's religious thought in a youthful rebellion against the Calvinism and predestinarian beliefs of his father. Lincoln found he could not believe in the revealed God of the Bible, although he knew the Bible well. He could not accept the doctrine of predestination, but he came close to it in a secular way. During most of his life, Lincoln was a determinist who believed that people had little independent choice in what they did but acted in response to outside factors which they did not control.

   According to Professor Guelzo, Lincoln also tended towards the englightenment of John Locke and towards the utilitarianism of Mill and Bentham. His politics and Presidency, of course, have distincly pragmatic characters. Throughout his life, Lincoln remained outside the fold of organized religion.

   According to Professor Guelzo, Lincoln's thought developed as Lincoln confronted at deepening levels the difficulty of the Civil War. The beginning of this development was the 1858 Lincoln-Douglas debates where Lincoln vigourously attacked the morality of holding slaves. Lincoln's thoughts on providence, for Professor Guelzo, were instrumental in Lincoln's decision to issue the Emancipation Proclamation. Lincoln told his cabinet he had made a promise "to his maker" to issue the Proclamation and that he could not do otherwise. (pp 341-42.) Guelzo continues his treatment of providential themes in Lincoln with his discussion of the Gettysburg Address and the Second Inaugural Address.

   There is also a great deal in the book that discusses Lincoln's handling of the War, the border states, his generals, and the Army. Professor Guelzo's intellectual and religous themes sometimes get lost in these discussions, and we are reminded that Lincoln was a pragmatist, a leader and a consummate politician.

   The picture of Lincoln's religiosity that emerges from Professor Guelzo's study has a distinctly modern flavor. (Professor Guelzo sees it as high Victorian.) Lincoln was a person who sought religous belief but could not find his way to an organized religion of his day. He was not, in his mid and late life, content simply with materialism and skepticism but rather developed his own religious thought based upon a rather loosely defined notion of providence and redemption. As personal as his thought was, it helped shape our nation. Lincoln's life, as Professor Guelzo presents it, seems to be a paradigm of many people today who reject organized religion in favor of a search for what many call spirituality.

   On a political level, Guelzo's account of Lincoln stresses that the United States is and has become a unified Nation and that Americans should see themselves, for all their diversity and differences as part of a unified people. I also see the book as a reminder of the value of hard work and economic effort.

   Professor Guelzo has written a thoughtful, provocative study of Lincoln the man, the thinker, and the President.




4. Like a typical biography, Redeemer President goes through its subject's life. But unlike most biographies, Redeemer President centers on the maturation of its subject's thinking. Guelzo shows how some of Lincoln's most famous ideas, such as his reliance on "the proposition that all men are created equal," was part of Whig orthodoxy. To trace Lincoln's development takes nothing away from his genius, of course.

   This was one of the most enjoyable biographies I have read on Lincoln. One might begin with Oates' With Malice Toward None for Lincoln's life as a great story. Then go to Donald's Lincoln for a more modern biography -- lots and lots of facts, but with little attempt to see Lincoln as a product of his own time. Both are very well written, but I prefer Guelzo's over either of them.

   If you like Guelzo's book on Lincoln's thought, you'll like A New Birth of Freedom by Harry V. Jaffa, which Guelzo calls "the greatest book on Lincoln's politics for another generation."




5. Eerdmans should stick to theological tomes, rather than embarassing themselves with yet another propaganda piece for the Yankee cause. Guelzo fails to mention how Lincoln trampled upon the Constitution (Illegal arrests, Intimidation of duly elected leaders (e.g. Maryland State Legislature), and making war upon peaceful states which legally withdrew from the voluntary Union). A Government for the people, by the people vanished [Jeffersonian Constitutional Republic replaced with Consolidated Absolutism] with Lincoln's insistence that the Federal government existed before the States. The right of secession in America, beginning with the Declaration of Independence, was taught for decades until Sen. Sumner thundered from the Senate floor that this was a perpetual Union (Lincoln decided to carry this torch at the expense of 600,000 innocents). Lincoln's Emancipation proclamation was none other than a war measure (slaves were being used to build the capital and slaves were only declared free in Confederate held territory)encouraging slaves to revolt: this did not happen. Guelzo also fails to mention that slavery in the South was dying out and that roughly 10% of her people ever owned slaves. Guelzo failed to point out that the Emancipation Proclamation was illegal since it would have to take a Constitutional amendment to change the Constitution. Furthermore, his book fails to point out that the Emancipation had no jurisdiction in the Confederate States of America since the Southern states were no longer a member of the Union. I'm amazed at how people continue to admire a man who waged war on people who decided to follow in the footsteps of their fathers: Revolutionary War Heroes. The South was right, and the Northern propaganda machine is still filling the public mind with lies. If Abraham Lincoln embodies what a Christian is, then I'm not one, and evangelicals fascination with a man who was not converted until after Gettyburg is dangerous. Furthermore, I have no respect for a man who waged war on my native state: North Carolina.

5 comments about Huey Long.

1. Whether or not you enjoy history is inconsequential. Though I typically do not read & am not interested in historical reads, I thoroughly enjoyed this book. T.Harry Williams is an excellent author. I remain amazed at the impact Huey Long had in so many facets of not only Louisiana, but the United States of America altogether. Recommend it to everyone, not only Southerners!



2. I very much enjoyed reading T. Harry Williams' biography of Huey Long. The book seems to be extensively researched and benefits greatly from being written at a time when many of Long's cohorts and enemies were still alive and accessible. The reality is a person would have to be a bad writer indeed for a book about Long not to be, at the least, interesting. Long was unlike any character in the history of American politics and, had an assassin not brought him down in 1935, would probably be much more than just a footnote to American history.
   
   The book goes to great lengths to describe Long's conservative, status quo preserving enemies. It's an important point due to the fact that many, in recalling Long's exploits, have forgotten just how dangerous these folks were (Schlesinger comes to mind). Without these backward callous men (for the most part they were men), Huey Long would have likely been little more than an extremely shrewd Louisiana lawyer. But their outrageous indifference to anything other than their own prosperity laid the groundwork for Long's rise, and created a ready made constituency that is loyal (among those still living) to this day. William's book goes to great lengths to point out the legitimate achievements, against bitter resistance, of Long's machine - roads, bridges and education being top of the list. The acheivements were real and, only a few years before they occurred, had seemed utterly impossible. Long made them happen by force of will, uncanny political instincts and a willingness to do anything to achieve his goals - and it is here that Mr. Williams' book is profoundly flawed.
   
   Mr. Williams is an apologist for Long. Williams will recite some fascist (and there is really no other word that works) scheme of Long's - for example, having the state police arrest two men a few days prior to an election because he fears the men will talk to the press and make allegations that might hurt Long, ramrod (single-handedly) legislation of dubious constitutionality through the Lousiana legislature in record time (a few minutes in some accounts) when he has no legal authority to do so (he was a US Senator), ensure kickbacks are provided to his subordinates (and himself) in exchange for favor in the state government, appoint himself as counsel for the state in big cases and - of course - receive large fees for his representation, use the state police as his own personal security staff, via unconstitutional law, strip virtually all autonomy from local government and centralize it in Baton Rouge to ensure his machine controls all government-related jobs (county deputies, for example), deduct money from state employee's pay and use it for his political campaigns (keeping the "deducts" in cash in a lock box - supposedly containing, at the time of Long's death, a million dollars (that's 1935 dollars!) - only to tell his reader that, well, it looks bad but 'ol Huey was really just being politically astute and doing what had to be done in the harsh political environment of Louisiana.
   
   Williams' theme seems to be that whatever the Kingfish did of an underhanded nature was done because that was the only way to help the people. Although Williams does note that Huey was a power-seeker (in a gargantuan understatement), it doesn't seem to occur to Mr. Williams that power was, in fact, the passion that drove him. Helping the poor and the middle class, and improving Louisiana, were only a pretense to the power grab. Williams points out when Long was a young man, newly married, he laid out his vision to his wife. He would be elected to a lower state office, then become governor, then a US Senator, then the president. He did not lay out a plan to her about how he would build roads or educate the poor or bring Louisiana out of the nineteenth century. That would come later, when he realized that was his best avenue to power. While reading Mr. Williams' book this becomes overwhelmingly evident - to everyone but Mr. Williams.



3. Huey Long was one of the most fascinating characters in American history and T. Harry Williams tells his story better than anyone else. Long rose from absolutely abject poverty to become perhaps the most powerful political leader in Louisiana history and for a time, one of the most influential leaders in the US. This hick from the sticks went to the big city and made good.
   
   The Kingfish was, of course, corrupt, but was genuinely populist. He fought for better education for the poor, the right to organize labor unions, and he pushed adult literacy, which mainly benefited African-Americans. His public works projects employed thousands and built hundreds of roads and bridges. He fought the entrenched and powerful interests in favor of the common man.
   
   T. Harry Williams' work is simply the best on the man and the politician.



4. My motive for reading this book was, admittedly, not very historical. Watching TV, reading the newspapers, I concluded that there was a major flood in 1927 which came down the Mississippi. Because the monied of New Orleans feared that the "better part of town" might be in danger, they arranged to dynamite the levees in such a way that would divert the waters into St. Bernard and Plaquemines parishes. Certain eminent domain and financial arrangements were made (and later reneged on) and those who could and would be were evacuated. All the same, many died and many more would made homeless, for the potential benefit to the few. Then, or so I heard, the outrage of the masses in Louisiana at this miscarriage of power and justice by the rich led to the election of Huey P. Long (as champion of the "little guy") as Governor and launched a career.
   
   Well, too bad. This book doesn't go down that road at all. The flood of 1927 is barely touched on. Yes, it happened, but there is no mention of the dynamited dams. Yes, Hoover came down and was in charge of federal relocation and recovery. And in the meantime, Huey was running about the same campaign he would run for the rest of his life: Down with the Rich! Up with the Poor! and All Hail Huey!
   
   Williams' biography is incredibly well documented. You get the feeling that if you just tore out the bibliography, the notes, and the index, you would be forced to write the same book yourself, with one caveat: some parts of the book were written from the author's notes of interviews and private communications the author had with some of the principals who were still alive when it was written through the 1950s and 60s. The author has promised that all the notes have been archived and that while not of them can be released as yet, eventually, they all will be. Williams is quite vigorous not so much in defense of Long as in definition of the man and his vision. If you want to decide for yourself just what sort of man Huey Long was and where he might have been going, this biography is an excellent place to start.



5. It reads like a novel beginning with Huey's childhood through his assassination. The political skills that Huey Long learned throughout his life enabled him to achieve his level of success and T. Harry Williams clearly breaks down those skills so that others interested in politics can learn from one of the best. Although his policies and belief that the ends justify the means many times show Huey's questionable character, Huey Long was a skilled politician and a master at extending his influence and power.
   
   Every politico or aspiring politician should read this book.

1 comments about Barack Obama: What He Believes In - From His Own Works.

1. Barack Obama's works in the Senate in 2007 are admirable. They show a picture of a person who has diverse concerns especially in the fields of education, veterans' rights, healthcare, global warming, and poverty here and abroad. I like the way he is able to work with people of both parties, demonstrating that there are many problems concerning us all. . . that it isn't all "hate and hurt" between us. . . or shouldn't be.
   
   My only problem is, and maybe I'm wrong, that there is no explanation - or pointing out specifics. There is nothing to help us know whether a cosponsor is a Democrat or a Republican or an Independent. I know I am familiar with some but certainly not all the other Senators. You can look them up if you have time; otherwise you are left to guess or decide that it doesn't matter.
   
   The best thing about this book is that it removes all the rumors claiming that Senator Obama has done nothing in the Senate since he was elected: This is simply not true. He has worked hard. One can see that he does not take his responsibilities lightly.
   
   Marianna Settles
   Escondido CA