5 comments about How I Accidentally Joined the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy: (and Found Inner Peace).

1. Harry Stein, 1970s party guy, marries, has kids and finds himself in... the middle of the road. He thinks he's conservative because his social circle consists mainly of Manhattan Silly Lefties (the same species so ably skewered by Tom Wolfe in "Radical Chic" (reprinted in Radical Chic & Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers in 1970) but to real conservatives he's still a secular, ambivalent-about-abortion moderate, albeit one with an axe to grind against feminism.
   
   The unspoken factor in the book is its social class context. Stein has clearly spent his life in the High Achievement Zone where opportunity and support can be taken for granted and individuals really can do pretty much whatever they set out to do. (He makes it obvious by dropping names of notables he knows personal stories about - the kinds of stories he'd only hear by traveling in the same circles they do.) In this context he rightly condemns those of his peers who do things like walk out on their underage kids "in search of deeper fulfillment" or "to find myself" or some other fancified way of saying "because parenthood turned out to be less fun and more work than I expected." But he has little to say to the rest of us, those who struggle to get by and have hard choices to make. That's okay. It's not that serious a book. But if you're not at his socioeconomic level, you're not the audience it was written for.



2. Harry Stein, 1970s Party Guy, weds and spawns and accidentally finds himself in...the middle of the road. He thinks he's right-wing because he's surrounded by Manhattan Silly Lefties (the same social set so ably skewered by Tom Wolfe in "Radical Chic" back in the day) among whom he is probably the rightmost individual in any room he's in. However, compared to the real right, he's still a secular, ambivalent-on-abortion moderate, albeit one with an ax to grind against feminism.
   
   The hidden issue here is social class. Stein seems to have lived his whole life in the High Achievement Zone, the level of society where ability and opportunity can be taken for granted, where everybody can do pretty much whatever they set out to do, certainly as far as their personal lives are concerned. He writes from and for that class, rightly taking aim at their failings, e.g., the self-indulgence of those of his peers who walk out on their underage kids out of boredom and then disguise it with fancy language ("need to find myself," "searching for greater fulfillment," etc.) But in the process, he ends up slighting the concerns of the rest of us, the people who get by, muddle through, struggle along and do what we have to do. Frankly, I don't think we're part of his target audience. I think this book was meant to circulate among, and shake up, the elite in a few expensive metropolitan areas. That the rest of us got to see it is just a fluke of the market economy.



3. There are thoughtful, rueful memoirs of sincere political change. This isn't one of them. Stein opens with a typically 70's, upper-class-journalist/boyo recitation of his personal (pre-conversion) sluttishness, including key club swinging, screwing prostitutes, and even, shamefully, exploiting them in the workplace. Funny. Then he puff against others speaking of their past errors, accusing them of a lack of dignity and recommending mature silence. How'd he do that? By hewing to a singular theme: he's different. Special. Not like us. Most of his ire, of course, is reserved for Bill Clinton and feminists. He chides the former for behaving exactly as he did (pre-conversion) and the latter for advocating for stuff like child care, which he opposes, arguing that since he's lucky enough to have a cool job, hip apartment and (rich former entertainment executive) wife who happily abandoned her career to raise their kids, we should all do the same. Larded, of course, with fond memories of his "radical" days, Stein comes across as a braggard, name dropper and opportunist who fails entirely to see the irony in scolding actresses for having children out of wedlock while simultaneously opposing abortion and forgetting to mention, let alone also disapprove of, the rich, producer pals of his who knocked them up in the first place. Nice work, if you can get it.



4. Stein is a very good writer and does himself proud in this book. He was a darling of the Left, until he matured into a responsible adult, and then became their enemy. Like many former leftist elitists, he goes through the trials and tribulations of having life handed to him on a silver platter, looks down on the rubes who are too stupid to understand what he is talking about from his snobbish point of view, but comes to realize that the great divide between the red and blue states is a function of living life instead of reading about it in the New York Times.
   
   While others have made similar transformations, such as Horowitz or Krystol, Stein goes further in exposing the idiocy of the Upper East Side liberals who rail against supposed violations of "free speech" except at the dinner tables they use to suppress it. His observations on the consequences of their liberalism which made NY the murder capital of the world until Giuliani somehow miraculously appeared from the sky as mayor even though they all voted for Dinkins as he presided over the carnage is particularly interesting.
   
   I didn't know whether to laugh or cry at many chapters of this book, but I guess both emotions were appropriate since I have suffered through many of the hypocrisies that makes up the vast majority of the elite liberals today. His observations about "sexgate" as he calls Clinton's great role modeling of corruption for the country's youth of wagging your finger and lying as he performed his magic act with Monica and the disappearing cigars is a good example, but there are many more, such as the disappearing act of "Murphy Brown's" baby when the ratings decided this little Hollywood stunt should be aborted once it was no longer of use in attacking those who viewed intact families as something of value. Of course Brown's role modeling for the millions of unwed women who have babies but have to raise them makes for great observation on Stein's part.
   
   This book was written in 2000, so it is a bit dated, but still relevant to the culture wars of today.



5. The dust-cover copy caries a list of self-help style questions to determine if you might enjoy this book. While they are meant to be light hearted and fanciful, one of them jumps out as a great point of departure in looking at this book. To wit: You sit all the way through "Dead Man Walking" and at the end still want the guy to be executed.
   I remember seeing the film when it first came out. At the end, I was sure Susan Sarandon's character had realized that the job of a nun is saving souls, not protesting political issues. It was no great shock to find over the following days that the rest of the planet viewed the film as a masterful argument against capital punishment. I am used to finding myself on the outskirts of fashionable sentiment and have no plans to move to the center. Works like Stein's reassure me that I am in good company. Intelligent, well informed people can disagree about political issues, spittle-flecked protestations of the left notwithstanding.
   It really is okay to be a social conservative. Advocating reasonable limits on abortion for instance does not mean you hate women; it means you think children are a blessing and that they deserve at least as much protection as we demand for the cockroaches used in filming popular movies (see p. 204.) People like Stein, people who started out as beaded and sandaled hippies and metamorphosed into conservatives are open to accusations of being "wishy-washy," of having sold-out. But Stein makes the excellent point that holding lofty principles while one has no experience and few real responsibilities in life is the truly indefensible position. The things that seemed like such a good idea when you were waving a sign on campus suddenly look different when it is time to pay for them and see how they affect your own children. Most people will become more conservative as they grow older and take on more responsibilities. The question is whether those people will have the courage to lead in the face of the idealistic mob, yammering for ever more government.

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

1. Joe Maguire, Brainless: The Lies and Lunacy of Ann Coulter (Morrow, 2006)
   
   I set out to read both Ann Coulter's Godless: The Church of Liberalism and Joe Maguire's Brainless: The Lies and Lunacy of Ann Coulter concurrently, expecting, not to put too fine a point on it, that I'd hate Godless and love Brainless. As it turns out, I was quite wrong; I hated both of them. It never occurred to me that Maguire would, in trying to attack Coulter, stoop to her level.
   
   And stoop he does, even though he doesn't seem to understand he's doing so. Right from the get-go, he tells us that "Brainless should not be considered an attack on Ann Coulter the person." (13)
   
   Okay, so Maguire won't resort to ad hominems, or so he gives us to believe. But even if you look past the book's subtitle (I think calling someone else's writing "lunacy" is pretty much the definition of an ad hominem attack), in the very next sentence, he writes, "Rather, it is a full frontal assault on her methods, her mischief, and her madness." (Emphasis mine.) Perhaps I'm not quite understanding the difference between attacking "the person" and referring to "her madness".
   
   In any case, reading the books side-by-side, it becomes obvious that Maguire is trying to play Coulter's game-- taking the fight to her court, as it were. He repeatedly praises Coulter's writing style (which is, in my view, competent at best), and then goes on to attack her substance while using that very same style-- the one that's littered with the ad hominems, snide insults, and unfunny jokes.
   
   Ann Coulter is not, despite what Joe Maguire believes, a good writer. And because he spends so much time aping Coulter's style, at least in this instance, neither is Joe Maguire. (zero)



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



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



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



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

5 comments about Fidel Castro: A Biography.

1. If you are looking for a biography of Castro this is a decent one. There are better ones out there but taken alone this book will tell you the essential things about Castro. I would recommend Guerilla Prince or Fidel Castro by Quirk as a substitute for this book. It is well written but lacks the in depth analysis that the previous two mentioned provide. If you just want a quick introduction use this one but if you really want to know about Castro I would use one of the other two.



2. There's absolutely nothing here not already explored in more detail elsewhere. The reader is forewarned as early as p. 3, when the author calls Naty Revuelta "the most captivating woman in Cuba." How many women did the author interview during the 1950s in Cuba so he could make this statement? Silly at best and incredibly breathless as well.
   And while we're on the opening pages, there's nothing about Castro's well-known illegitimacy and tremendously awful childhood, including the many traumatic events that later defined Castro's megalomaniacal behaviors. Instead, the author takes Castro's word that he was raised into a rich family and that he had some sort of normal childhood when nothing could be further from the truth. He was in fact raised in various foster homes, including the shack of his maternal grandparents. He was not allowed in the "big house" because his father was married to someone else. He didn't even have the last name Castro until he was 17.
   The best part of the book is the cover photo, which shows, among other things, Castro's long and manicured nails.



3. I thought this book was quite good. I remember that when I bought it I read a review stating the the book was outstanding, but the reviewer didn't like the fact that the author kept travelling through time instead of providing a chronological approach to the biography. I actually liked this book better for this reason, partly. Volker Skierka does write the book chronologically, but also skips ahead in time and some times reminds you of instances in the past. Having read this book I'm now interested in reading another, lengthier biography of Castro. The book also does a good job of providing some interesting analysis of what's currently going on in Cuba and what might happen after the man expires. I thoroughly enjoyed it!



4. First of all, this is a great biography. Its incredibly balanced in many topics and pans all along the intense life of Fidel Castro.
   Im not giving 5 stars for two basic reasons:
   1. I think that it is fast forwarded on several fundamental moments of Castro`s history. For example, Sierra Maestra and its very complex development between the action in the mountains and the polithical operation that was done in the cities. That is a fundamental point in the triumph of the Revolution and Skierka gets short in detail and interpretation of the moment. Another example is the relationship between Castro and Che Guevara. The ideology of Guevara was much more influential for Castro than what Skierka merely suggests, Skierka runs away from the problem quoting a Che's biographer: Jorge Castañeda.
   2. This is very important for all the future readers of this work. This biography is classified by topics mostly and not chronologically. For me, this was annoying at some moments and I got more focused in others. For example, one of Castro's skills is the illusionism. He is an expert of saying yes and acting like no. In telling to everybody what they want to hear and do what he wants to do. He partially opened and closed Cuba's socialism so when you have this kind of charachters it can be annoying to be in 1995 and then return to 1989 and then fly to 2000 and return to 1959. On the other hand, there are some topics that get more interesting when you gather all the information, topics such as Castro and religion. It lights a part of Fidel that we could have never imagined, and for me it was one of the most enjoyable moments of the book.
   
   With these 2 handicaps it's still a great work. The economic side of the biography is well explained for all of us who dont have much knowledge on the subject, and we even learn about it withe guidance of Skierka.
   
   Fidel Castro's life is immensely interesting. No matter if you are a Fidelista or not, we are talking about a unique kind of politician. He is a survivor in the crushing steps of history. He survived a "Periodo Especial" which was his ultimate act of escapism.
   I really enjoyed to read this book. My understanding of the world development is now more clear and my perspective of Fidel Castro is now different than 500 pages before.



5. Fidel Castro: A Biography is a solid and thorough rendition of the life of Cuba's tenacious and controversial political leader. Tracing his early years, his influence on profound events of history, economic and social issues plaguing the nation of Cuba up to the modern era, and much more, Fidel Castro: A Biography is an exceptional, evenhanded portrait of an undeniably strong leader's strengths and weaknesses. An inset selection of black-and-white photographic plates complements the involving prose.

5 comments about James Madison: The Founding Father.

1. This is one case where I should have heeded the advice of this site's reviewers.
   
   I wanted to read a Madison biography, but I wasn't looking for a 500-page book, and since my father had this one at his house, I thought, "How bad could it be?" Well, it's pretty shaky.
   
   First of all, Rutland does not make this easy on the readers because he's all over the place. It's not neat and focused like a good biography generally is, perhaps because he tried to cram so much information into less than 300 pages. He just jumped around too much.
   
   For example, the first chapter is a disaster. Rutland barely mentions Madison's upbringing, and even when he does, it's buried amongst other information. You will not get hooked by the first chapter. The last chapter was supposed to be about Madison's post-presidency life, but Rutland continues to mention parts of the presidency. I also really wanted a more focused description of the events leading up to the War of 1812, and what I got were bits of hard-to-follow details here and there. This is just not smooth story telling.
   
   There was some valuable information, such as the detailed outline of the Republican platform during the early stages of the party. And the book was not painfully sympathetic to its subject, but rather a fair account of the great man's life. Perhaps another 100 pages and a more defined overall direction, with chapters addressing a few specific issues rather than bouncing all around, would have made this a decent book.
   
   For those looking to learn about Madison, I don't know what book you should read, but I would not recommend this one.



2. The War of 1812 was fought with Great Britain. The British captured Washington, D.C., and burned the White House. Madison fled. He is known as the father of the Constitution and wrote the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is the first 10 Amendments. The first Amendment guarantees free speech.



3. I did not really care for this book. Rutland makes the premise that Madison was THE founding father implying that he was the most important. He finishes the book with a quote from JFK that Madison was the most under-rated president yet the book dedicates less than 40 pages to the presidency of James Madison. In those 40 pages, I did not gleam anything that Madison did exceptionally well - it all sounded pretty bad to me. I believe the point that Rutland was trying to make is that Madison was not Jefferson's crony and that it was Madison who actually shaped the early Republican party (early version of today's Democratic Party). This was a point well taken and I might accept that Madison was Jefferson's superior. At that same time, I remain unconvinced that he was THE founding father with such peers as George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin. Important yes but...
   
   The failed argument of Madison's superiority aside, I found the book to brief to be interesting. James Madison was a central figure in the formation of our country, the formation of party politics, and the early days of the republic and to try and tell the story of his entire life in a 250 page book is simply impossible. Many important stories that I have previously enjoyed in book volume detail were reduced to a sentence or two in Rutland's book.
   
   I think this book perfect for a high school student who needs a quick read for a research project but has no real interest in the life and career of James Madison. For a history nut like me, it is a bit too much like reading an encyclopedia.



4. Read the title: "James Madison: The Founding Father" focuses on Madison's role in the founding of our country. Here we learn little of Madison's youth and upbringing. Although Dolly plays a role in this book, it is a relatively minor part.
   
   This book explains Madison's role in the development and ratification of the Constitution, including his authorship of some of the Federalist Papers. The narration of Madison's leadership in the early Democratic-Republican Party can change the reader's view of history. Whereas we usually think of Thomas Jefferson as founder of the Democratic-Republican Party, Rutland makes a strong case that it was really Madison who united and organized the party from his seat in the House of Representatives. Much as Alexander Hamilton founded the party which elected John Adams, so it can be said that James Madison founded the party which chose Thomas Jefferson as its first standard bearer.
   
   Rutland progresses through Madison's term as Secretary of State and even puts a favorable spin on his two terms as president. This is no easy task, considering that the British burned the White House and Capitol on his watch.
   
   Rutland follows the wind down of Madison's career with his post-White House collaboration in the establishment of the University of Virginia.
   
   I appreciate books which enable me to see things differently. This book meets that test. I had always thought of Madison as, so to speak, Jefferson's underling and less talented successor. Through Robert Rutland's eyes we see him as one of the most influential and talented men of the early Republic. Madison comes across, as a practical political operative, the equal of Hamilton and, in result at least, perhaps his better. In the title, Rutland tells us that James Madison is The Founding Father. In the book he proves it.



5. not like Jefferson & Hamilton or celebrated like Washington & Franklin. My fellow reviewers seemed disappointed in this as a biography. But it was not Mr. Rutland's purpose to write a personal story of Mr. Madison's life although his later years were covered quite well. I am glad, however, I took the easy way out by listening to the audio version (unedited). It was as if I was in Mr. Rutland's class as he was giving a lecture. The years after The Revolutionary War, The Federalist Papers, The Constitution & The Bill of Rights, are the real meat of this book. Madison's behind the scenes leadership in Congress was consummate. If we do not appreciate how important he was 200 years later, it seems that he contemporaries did. To his sorrow he was, with Jefferson, responsible for creating the two party system we now operate under. That he wanted to heed Washington's advice against the party system is evident. But he found this advice quickly outdated. As a result Washington, & to a lesser extent Adams were the only unaffiliated presidents in our history. Happily, none of this two-party stuff is cluttering up our Consititution. As Secretary of State under Jefferson & President on his own he was unremarkable. Any one could have mucked things up as well as he did. Indeed his best years were his early years. What seemed to me remarkable was the love, respect & friendship that existed between Madison & Jefferson all of their adult lives. It was an alliance of two great men that never wavered & recreated the "republican" type government of ancient Greece. Mr Rutland was obviously impressed by this relationship & alludes to it several times. I appreciate biographies that teach me something about history I didn't know. How great is this book? Hard to say. But it fit the bill.

5 comments about My Country Versus Me: The First-Hand Account By the Los Alamos Scientist Who Was Falsely Accused of Being a Spy.

1. 
   
   Dr Lee told his story in this book. As a naturalized American citizen, he does his professional job, raised a family with a typical middle class profile. But he was the wrong man as in the Chinese saying "The city gate fire victimized the fish in the pond" in the struggle of two parties ugly politics. Reading this book creates the following questions.
   
   1. Where is due process for Dr. Lee?
   2. What is the role of free press in democracy?
   3. Why a free press is enthusiastic to make a guilty assumption on him?
   4. Why there is silence on the spy on Crown Jewel Rocket secret afterward?
   5. Why US Court Judge Parker ended the case with an unusual apology to Dr. Lee, an alleged felon in 9-month solitary confinement with 59 charges?
   6. Why there is a plea bargain for one small charge to cover up lost face?
   7. Why this case is important relating to US Constitution and the rule of law?
   
   Dr Lee warns readers "Do not talk to FBI without your lawyer." This book gives the reality lesson of politics, humanity and justice.
   All men are created equal - some are more equal than others?



2. This book is a self-serving woe-is-me diatribe against the US government because it dared to charge a non-white individual with the crime of espionage. Lee claims this happened to him by virtue of the fact that he is Chinese, and in spite of the fact that he is a naturalized American citizen. Hence, the title.
   
   First, I do not consider naturalized citizens to be American in the full sense of the word. It is simply amazing that people like Lee get hired to positions such as the one he held.
   
   Second, having served in the US Air Force with a top secret crypto clearance, I know from experience that people working in the intelligence community are very aware that they are not to share any sensitive data with anyone unless he/she has the appropriate clearance as well as "the need to know." Yet Lee downloaded all kinds of classified data onto his home computer, a huge no-no for anyone working with sensitive data. And why did he do so, pray tell? What was he going to do with the data he stole? Are we to assume he had no intentions of sharing this information with anyone? According to Lee, to think otherwise makes one a racist.
   
   Third, when the story first broke in the media, I knew it was only a matter of time until Lee or his attorneys would play the race card. If you go to Lee's website and check the names of those that have signed a petition in behalf of Mr. Lee, you will notice that the vast majority are Chinese. How many of these signatories put their names on the petition out of a knee-jerk tribalistic instinct rather than through a sincere effort to discern the truth?
   
   And now we have the case of Chi Mak, a Chinese-born engineer recently found guilty of handing over classified data on electronic propulsion systems for stealth submarines to the People's Republic of China. One wonders why Chi Mak did not play the race card as did Lee. One wonders how many signatories to a petition he could garner from fellow Chinese living in the United States. One wonders what he was doing in such a position to begin with. Maybe we'll find out when Chi writes his book.



3. The book is an interesting account of Lee's "persecution", but anyone who reads the book without understanding that the author is writing about HIMSELF - not exactly an impartial source for the facts - will come to the conclusion that he was a victim of an insane government.
   
   If you don't have time to read the book, here's a synopsis - The US government knew that classified material was getting from Los Alamos to China, and targeted me for investigation not because of my admittedly suspicious and illegal activity but because I'm Asian.



4. Mr. Lee is an amazing author and does an excellent job portraying the "all-righteous" government so many americans think that we have in this country. The truth is that corruption does exists, which is evident in all of the ways that the FBI, DOE, courts, and all of the other Federal organizations dealt with Mr. Lee. My hat is off to him for his courage, fortitude, and skill in creating a wonderful written work straight from his heart.



5. In December 1999, when the threat to national security posed by Elian Gonzales had yet to be discovered and neutralized by the Reno Justice Department, another plot, equally dastardly, was uncovered by the FBI. Wen Ho Lee, a Taiwan-born American, was found to be working at the Los Alamos National Laboratory alongside America-born Americans on our nation's most sensitive nuclear secrets. With an alacrity that impressed even Reno's political opponents, the FBI clapped Lee into leg and arm shackles and an orange jumpsuit and put him into solitary confinement in a prison in Santa Fe. In so treating him *before* he had committed his crime, Reno was able to stop him from doing the sorts of things that Timothy McVeigh and Ramzi Yousef had done to get themselves the same sort of rough justice. Of course, Mr. Lee is not happy about these preventive measures, and it shows in his book, but the reader must keep in mind that he was born in Taiwan and doesn't understand our ways.
   
   It is distressing to all patriots that a judge ordered Mr. Lee's release before the Justice Dept was able to fully punish him for what they thought he might have done. Lee's lawyers cleverly played on the so-called "no evidence" loophole to get him sprung after a mere nine months in prison.
   
   Espionage and treason investigations are usually begun when there is evidence of a government employee in a sensitive post spending beyond his or her means: Clyde Conrad with his stash of gold coins; Ed Wilson with his vast Virginia real estate holdings; John Walker with his yacht. Lee's lawyers were able get him freed on the "no evidence" technicality before the FBI had time to find out what it was about Mr. Lee's lifestyle that made them understand that he was a spy. We know now that his stated hobbies of gardening and fly-fishing might well have been covers for illicit activities. Rare coins, might have been buried under the carrots. The whereabouts of an excellent trout pool in a New Mexico creek might have been only the first in a long line of secrets that Lee might have disclosed to the Chinese communists.
   
   Given that the FBI was not accorded sufficient time to uncover his crimes, the whole investigation appears to have rested on Mr. Lee's own admission of the fact that he was born in Taiwan, which has a clear link to China, which in turn is one of our nation's greatest enemies. It sends a chill down my spine to think of how many others might have used the "great scientist" guise to spy on us. Albert Einstein, to name only one, was allowed access to some of our most sensitive data on physics relating to atoms and neutrons and so forth, and no one seems to have noticed that he was born in *Germany*, one of our chief enemies in Europe during World War II. He managed to infiltrate the community of America-born scientists and might well have passed on a massive amount of vital intelligence to his erstwhile compatriots, the Nazis. In fact, it's no exaggeration to say that if he'd been properly incarcerated like Mr. Lee, the war in Europe might have ended many months sooner.

3 comments about Wallace: The Classic Portrait of Alabama Governor George Wallace.

1. Has some wonderful passages, especially on Wallace's youth. Love him or hate him or neither, he had a remarkable life and was truly "a character." Frady's prose is superb!



2. Even if you don't agree with the political message or the idiological slant of this character, you will be extremely glad that you read this character depiction. This takes you through each rise and fall along with his influence on many well-known Alabama political figures.



3. Frady definately has the usual liberal anti-Wallace attitude, but he has a lively writing style and, at times, does give credit to some Wallace's populist accomplishments.

3 comments about Adam By Adam: The Autobiography of Adam Clayton Powell, Jr..

1. Adam Clayton Powell Jr's autobiography is an extremely interesting read. However, for its true historical significance, it should be read in connection with one of the two biography's that came about about Powell in the early 1990's - KING OF THE CATS by Wil Haygood and/or the Political Biography by Charles V. Hamilton.
   
   Powell's life story is amazing. Unfortunately, his contributions to the cause of civil rights has been loss in the media coverage that he brought upon himself, particularly his explusion from Congress. There are those who are quick to say that Powell's problems were a result of racial discrimination. Sure, there was some of that, but Powell brought a great deal upon himself. His flamboyant life style, his absences from congress, his lavish spending at tax papers expense all did serious damage to his image. Probably the most damaging was his refusal to deal with a law suit brought by one of his constituants who he referred to as a "bag lady" while appearing on a TV talk show. The TV station settled with the woman for $1700 and it went away. However, Powell stonewalled the case for years until he was ultimately charged with criminal contempt of court. The case had gone through dozens of court hearings, several trials and numerous judges. There were even offers from supporters to pay the woman and get rid of the case. But Powell refused. It got so bad that he could only go to his district on sunday. Otherwise, he would have been arrested. He admits that his handling of the case was a major mistake.
   
   In an era when JFK's romantic engagments were kept secret and before the Gary Hart affairs, Powell was able to get away with a life style that was literally filled with wine, women and song. Even his position as a Baptist minister did not limit his life style, his affairs or his three marriages. He was a creature of the time in which he lived.
   
   ADAM BY ADAM was written near the end of Powell's life. In reading Haygood's account of his final days, you see a man trying to hold on to the past. He is alone and sick and abandoned by his former friends. As a result, Powell's accounts of his many friends and relationships rang very hollow to me. His finances were shot, he had no place to go. He was very much alone.
   
   Powell made significant contributions to American life and should not be forgotten. However, in reviewing his life, one wonders if following the old advise - you got to know when to fold and know when to hold - may have been wise. When Martin Luther King and other civil rights leaders meet with LBJ, Powell was excluded. He had become damaged goods. At the March on Washington in 1963 he was not allowed to speak. For a man with his ego, it must have been terrible.
   
   However, politicans create their own image. Powell was a loner who never listened to anyone. He had no close advisors. In many respects his life had a sad ending. But still his contribution to African American history should not be forgotten



2. Mr. Powell another of our past heros, not be forgotten. Read about the horrible treatment he received from the US congressmen in his day and his fight for his people.



3. Mr. Powell another of our past heros, not be forgotten. Read about the horrible treatment he received from the US congressmen in his day and his fight for his people.

1 comments about Green Parrots.

1. "Green Parrots: A War Surgeon's Diary" is a remarkable book with frank reality coming from a true humanitiarian.
   
   Dr. Gino Strada has been been helping victims of war, 90% civilians, for over seventeen years. His experience has brought him to Afghanistan, Iraq, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Pakistan, Sudan, Cambodia and other countries affected by war. Dr. Strada cuts through the clutter revealing what truely matters.
   
   Government A fights government B with a devastating price being paid by C, Civilians. More than talk or protest, these civilians need real help immediately.
   
   Dr. Strada and his organization EMERGENCY has been offering that help for over ten years but it is still just a drop in the bucket.
   
   Green Parrots is an anaesthetic-free-root-canal into humanity's irrational cruelty and violence and simultaneously and more importantly, it is about profound empathy and the real love countless 'Gods' of this world continuously attempt to take credit for. Green Parrots is about sovereign human conscience driving sovereign human action, collectively of course!"
   
   This book is be required reading. I DECLARE IT! Read it and share it.
   
   And check out [...]
   
   -Jason Bosch, Founder of ArgusFest.

1 comments about The Life & Times of William Howard Taft, Vol. 2.

1. I have read nearly every book in print about WHT. Pringle's effort is quintessential. Pringle begins his treatment by admitting that his interest in Taft is superficial: He decided to write these books only after completing works on Teddy Roosevelt. Taft is usually treated as a moon to Roosevelt's planet. Pringle typifies this treatment. One gets the impression that Pringle is a lifeguard forced to rescue a man whom he loathes. In the end, the entire effort devolves into an apologia. The lifeguard, after struggling against the currents of his own indifference, pulls his lifeless charge to shore, explaining to a hostile crowd: "Every man, even this loathsome creature, deserves a chance." He then walks away while Taft turns blue. I give this book three stars because it is better than nothing, but just barely.

5 comments about BERTRAND RUSSELL: The Spirit of Solitude 1872-1921.

1. This is simply amazing. Not only did BR write a thorough journal, but his friends, lovers, and associates, and their friends, lovers, and associates did too. And letters from all to all practically! We come to a sense of understanding BR et al better than they knew themselves. More: this has everything to do with the philosophy of BR. I wouldn't have believed it and often I feel wonderment about why we needed to know "that", good grief, when low and behold, there is the connection with the work. Had it not been for the life BR lived we would not have his work. It is enough to make you certain that our paradigm - learn the history of the man to understand him - is certainly a winning paradigm because of what it shows. It also encourages me to reflect on my own life. How can one read so intensely into the life of another without it having such an effect? Thoughts like: remember this! It was just so. BR expresses it so well. And Ray Monk does such a good job making it accessible, certainly having found it reliving the life of BR from the philosophers point of view as well as the lovers and students. Since I have also read Wittgenstein, I loved the cross over and the record of the various steps in their relationship felt the richer for having read both. Life is great when you have great books like this on a beautiful summer evening.



2. The first part of Ray Monk's outstanding biography of Bertrand Russell centres more on his love life than on his philosophical or political evolution.
   It shows us a restless Russell, fearing (hereditary) madness and becoming a real womanizer after the break-up of his first marriage.
   The number of letters which Russell wrote to his (ex-)lovers is truly amazing and Ray Monk quotes profusely from them.
   The reactions of the husband of Ottoline Morrell, Russell's lifelong friend and most important mistress, shows that apparently promiscuity in the British High Society was not a problem.
   On the philosophical front, Ray Monk doesn't explain very clearly Russell's essential logical discoveries (see B. Magee - Confessions of a philosopher). On the other hand, the importance of Peano's work, his clashes with Wittgenstein (who torpedoed a big part of Russell's work) and D.H. Lawrence (for Russell, a fascist) as well as his questioning of G. Frege (whose work was annihilated by one question by Russell) are very well documented.
   Politically, Russell became a utopian socialist (no private property, which was the source of all evil) and later a real liberal fighting for universal suffrage also for women.
   A key event in his life was the outbreak of WWI. It shattered definitively his trust in mankind. He became a sceptic and a convinced pacifist for the rest of his life.
   
   Although I found that there were too many love letter excerpts in this book, it remains a fascinating read.



3. This is one of the most stimulating, dazzling, intellectually satisfying, strangely comforting books that I have ever read.

   As an academic myself, devoted to the lonely quest for truth, this book was strangely comforting, as I could empathise with some of the struggles Bertrand Russell endured.

   This book (along with Lance Armstrong's "It's not about the Bike" and Dag Hammarskjold's "Markings") is very important to me. By reading the many excerpts it includes of Russell's letters and diaries, I have come across many stunningly phrased morsels of eloquence - yes, Russell's behaviour is sometimes horrifying, yet rather than this make the book unpleasant, it actually made it a learning experience. I learnt things about humanity that were meaningful to me, and I experienced (and learnt from) the many exquisite phrases.

   Any negativity concerning Russell's character was, from my perspective, *completely* eclipsed by the rewarding, educating and intellectually and emotionally intense experience of reading this remarkable book.
   I do not that often discover books that are very meaningful and brilliant; I would be very happy if over the next few years I accidentally stumble upon a *handful* of books that measure up to the standards that my current favourites have achieved. Until then I will just have to re-read my favourites.

   (I found this book so dense with insight that I actually started a file on my computer where I type notes from this biography concerning ideas and phrases that were particularly interesting/beautiful.)




4. Strange as it may seem, I began to read this book after reading its sequel, but got the same good impression of it all, because what counts most is both the stature of Bertrand Russel and the way it is portrayed by Ray Monk.
   "The Spirit of Solitude" is simply fascinating, covering the years Russell dedicated to the philosophy of Mathematics, a subject that is so complex, that completely absorved him, causing his first marriage to collapse amidst great personnal pain to his wife, making Russell to seek love comfort with women who could fulfill the maternal absence to a man who lost both his parents when a child. The pressure exerted upon him by his grandmother is also elucidative on the ways he chose to mantain his personall life amid a curtain of secrecy, something instrumental in his future evolution as a philosopher.
   The apex of his career was hit when he published, along with Whithehead, the voluminous Principia Mathematica, a 4.500 pages book, which took some 10 years of his best efforts, and which was dedicated to the foundations of philosophical thinking in Mathematics. It was such a difficult book to read that even Russell expected that no more than a handfull of great mathematicians could read and understand what was there meant.
   This book is a must for everyone interested in Philosophy and the philosophy of mathematical thinking.



5. I can only agree with what has gone before. A truly wonderful "book", if that's what you call these short 58 page things. Takes the view that the "fall" from Platonism to nominalism in mathematics is the key to Russell's development as a philosopher. I don't know if it's true or not, since Russell had such a complicated life, but it is an utterly fascinating hypothesis, and completely accessible, as Monk unfolds the account. The writing is so smooth I could barely tell when Monk transitioned to new topics.