1 comments about Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the Making of Modern America (Library of American Biography Series) (Library of American Biography).

1. In his introduction, Allan Winkler states that this was a book that he had wanted to write for his entire academic career, a desire rooted both in his longtime interest in the era and his respect for other volumes in the Library of American Biography series. He goes on to cite two volumes in particular - Edmund Morgan's The Puritan Dilemma: The Story of John Winthrop (Library of American Biography) and John Morton Blum's Woodrow Wilson and the Politics of Morality (Library of American Biography) - as ones that particularly impressed him.
   
   Sadly, this book suffers by comparison to those earlier works. Part of the problem lies in Winkler's effort to grapple with the particulars of Franklin Roosevelt's life, one that included the longest presidency in American history, during which he lead the nation through the twin crises of the Great Depression and the Second World War. Such a career is filled with detail, and often Winkler seems overwhelmed by it all. All too often, the text degenerates into a litany of developments, with little overarching or explanatory analysis. Winkler's writing contributes to this, as he serves up standard prose containing no hint of the passion for his subject that he describes in his introduction.
   
   As a result, Winkler's book doesn't measure up to the lofty standards of the series set by the volumes he cites as his inspiration. Though not a bad work, it fails to capture its legendary subject, losing him instead in the minutiae of his career. Readers seeking an introduction to Franklin Roosevelt and who desire such details will not be let astray, but anyone seeking a greater sense of the man and his achievements would do well to look elsewhere.

2 comments about Mandela: The Authorized Portrait.

1. I hate leaving a book less than 5 stars, I really do. The book has lots of information and important facts about Mandela, but the problem I have is "ease of readability." There were so many things I just couldn't understand due to the author's extremely large vocabulary and phrasing. I suppose maybe that's my fault on some level, but the phrasing was so difficult I only grasped a small percentage of the book. Yes, there are lots of photos. Yes, there are handwritten pages Mandela wrote from his cell (none of which I could legibly read), as well as tons of dates and credits to acknowledgements. Unfortunately, I've decided to leave this book on the shelf.



2. Nelson Mandela stands as a Beacon in South Africa, Africa, and the rest of the world as an example of what a political leader should be. Not only was he largely responsible for the 'one person one vote' changes in South Africa, but then after he was elected president he served one term and retired. This is very un-politician like. Especially in the third world politicians seem to stay in office until they die. Then again, there was FDR in this country.
   
   This is a splendid book. It is profusely illustrated, and not quite a biography so much as a tribute. There are dozens of comments, interviews, documents from the time, historical reports and so on that record his struggle.
   
   Mandela did marvelous things, great things. I wonder though what will be the story of South Africa after he and his legacy are gone. There are political movements afoot there who preach that the whites should all be kicked out, that their property should be confiscated, and that South Africa will be like the rest of Africa in poverty and misery.

5 comments about What I Saw at the Revolution: A Political Life in the Reagan Era.

1. She's witty, intelligent, well-read, has down-home common sense, loves the Gipper. What's not to like? She tells great stories of a unique historic moment. She does not brag, has no axe to grind. Many beautiful sentences. One of America's great writers and thinkers. Don't miss her editorial essays in the Wall St. Journal on Saturdays. (Would someone please collect all of them, every word, into a book? Ala David Sedaris? PS - Reading DS leaves me amused, but feeling slightly creepier than I was before. PN leaves you sure that the world can and will be a better place.)
   
   I listened to the Audible recording (from audible,com via [...]), which I believe is her reading her own book. It adds a lot to have her read it. But ... audible.com does not bother to identify the reader. It sounds like Audible recorded their version from a $19 cassette recorder, using a $[...] microphone. You have to turn it up all the way and it's still muffled. It's criminal.
   
   I finished the book in a day, every minute a pleasure. Thanks, so much, Peggy Noonan.



2. Peggy Noonan, the girl behind Reagans' words. She is a former broadcast news writer for Dan Rather. She then brought a new voice into the male dominated world of the White House speachwriter. She brings a smile to the reader with her wonderful analogies and her beautiful, caressing, witty, and poetic words. Her knack for remembering the details is uncanny. At times I find her hard to follow----there is a lot going on in that fast paced mind. And she often goes off into a "daydream". This book brings us into the discussions and interactions inside the White House. She begins with her childhood (a world of innocence), then moves to her break from liberalism to conservatism (world of imperialist thought); and this is what she says:
   
   "What had seemed in my youth the party of rich dullards became, almost in spite of itself, the party of the people----it is about me, and what led me to be the first of my family to become that dread thing, a Republican. It is about CBS, where I worked, about the media in general and their dance with politics, a woman in politics, and visitor for five years to its capital............ it is about that too. Most of all, I suppose, it's about Reagan, the man at the center of the big turn, and what his presidency meant, and what I saw at the revolution." And this to some it up: "I just start at the beginning and end at the end. There are times when I express myself in a manner that might fairly be called idiosyncratic. Sometimes I experimented with writing speeches in free verse, which may five you an idea of what you're occasionally in for."
   
   Noonan gives us examples of crucial speeches, the contributors, and the steps that go into putting them together. She expresses her aggravation of the editing process and the words that went into the recycle bin. She is uniquely intuitive and observant of her contemporaries
   
   Noonan, with her heartfelt telling, brings us into the company of this very special, humble, and unassuming man, Reagan. (I'm happy to know him a little better.) Reagan was truly a blessing. His sense of humor was refreshing. Noonan will tell us she saw a lonely man, and through all this, she says, she still didn't know him. The last conversation she had with him, he told her about a reoccurring dream he had about living in a big house----it was clear, "a house that was available at a price I could afford". She concludes with the final years in the Reagan administration and her stint with Bush. Yes, Reagan had something to do with the fall of Communism.
   
   Wish you well
   Scott



3. Peggy Noonan is almost Shakespearean in her command and use of the English language. Her words flow like a soft brook on quiet Sunday morning.
   
   My favorite part was where she was talking about the experience of going to work in Washington, DC. The three steps are:
   1. Awe of those in power.
   2. Thinking "Man, I'm as smart as these people."
   and finally
   3. My God, WE are in charge?
   
   Priceless!
   
   Well done and a great read.



4. Peggy Noonan is a gifted writer with a great sense of humor, and she is certainly an exceptional student of human nature. In this book, she takes a young English major's talents into the Reagan White House and gives us, the reader, a unique picture of what it was like for her to work there writing speeches for the man whom she considers to be the greatest president of her lifetime. At the same time, she paints vivid and often humorous portraits of many of those with whom she worked and interacted, as well as of those with whom she often clashed over the words she chose.
   
   The problem that Ms. Noonan, and other speech writers, faced was that although they were not high ranking government bureaucrats or administration "decision makers," the words they wrote were the words which would be spoken by the President of the United States and, as such, her words would be taken by the American people and by leaders around the world as representing the views and positions of the United States of America.
   
   The National Security Council (NSC) members, the Defense Department, the State Department, and others were, therefore, concerned that what was said actually represented their understandings of America's stances and positions on the various issues. They didn't want any room left for misinterpretation or misunderstanding, yet they were terrible writers. This, of course, led to many contentious arguments with and among the various reviewers before the comments of perhaps forty or fifty reviewers could somehow be reconciled or discarded and a speech could go forward to the president's desk for his final approval. Peggy Noonan tells this story in an often surprising and humorous, yet insightful, way making this an interesting and fun book to read.
   
   Two of the buzz words often used by managers these days to prod their employees are "delight" and "surprise" as in "delight and surprise your customers." When I began writing this appraisal, that phrase kept coming to mind. Clearly, Peggy Noonan has succeeded in surprising me and her book obviously delighted me.



5. What an amazingly wide-ranging memoir Peggy Noonan wrote! Read this book if you want to know--
   
   * what it was like growing up in the Fifties, Sixties, and Seventies,
   * what it was like to work at a major news network (CBS) as it made the awkward, transition from radio to TV,
   * how the White House speechwriting process worked,
   * what went on inside the Reagan administration,
   * what it was like to be a woman in a field dominated by men,
   * what it was like to be a working-class, Fairleigh Dickinson-educated Jersey girl in a town populated by the old boys network and the Ivy League,
   * what Reagan was like in person,
   * how elements of the conservative movement fought and cooperated in the White House, and
   * much, much more.
   
   Having come to Reagan administration from CBS (where she worked for Dan Rather), Noonan spent only a few years at the White House in the mid-1980s -- long enough, though, to write some of Reagan's most memorable and moving speeches, including the Challenger and D-Day speeches -- but she saw, and participated in, so much. She describes her experiences with wit and humor and candor -- and, of course, the wonderful writing for which we've come to know her.
   
   Despite her own conservative politics and love for Reagan, this is not hagiography. Even as she stands clearly in awe of the president, he remains a mystery to her, a distant enigma. She is uncertain whether Reagan's aides are actually manipulating him, or whether it's Reagan who's really doing the manipulating of his aides who seem always to be at odds. And even as she stands clearly in awe of working in the White House, Noonan is quickly frustrated by the in-fighting among staff members, the bureaucratic fights among departments and agencies. This is particularly the case with the "staffing" of speeches, in which each department -- State, for example, and the National Security Council -- reviews a speech and basically tears it apart. Nor are Noonan's impressions of Nancy Reagan and Maureen Reagan particularly positive.
   
   In short, I think it's fair to say that the book is a classic of the genre.

5 comments about The Good Fight.

1. Harry Reid came from a totally non-religious, squalid background in the tough Nevada mining town of Searchlight. His father, a miner, abused both alcohol and his wife. Reid and his brothers "took him down" once to stop the abuse. Eventually, Harry rose through hard work, 75 to 80 hours per week, and, with some networking help, became a lawyer.
   
   His parental home, a shocking shack far worse than Elvis Presley's parental shack in Tupelo, Miss., had no equivalent in most advanced nations in '39, the year of his birth. The question that immediately arises is why does Reid fail to address the fact that slum houses were so prominent, so widely dispersed across the U.S. at that time and still constitute, at the present, a major feature of slumerica. Here arises a subtle theme of Reid's book, namely, one works oneself out of slumerica, but one doesn't understand why slumerica continues. Reid never once focuses on this issue. Instead, he uses it for grandstanding, for hooking onto the log-cabin-to-the-White-House myth, the Horatio Alger myth, the aspirational sentiments of most in spite of the fact that downward mobility is the reality of many Americans far more than in most advanced nations. (See the number of university educated people living in marginal trailer homes or having jobs that are performed by grade-school grads in other nations or check economic research summarized in "The Economist" re upward mobility among the poor in the EU being far better than in the U.S.)
   
   Reid values education, but it was of the type that is used for career advancement, for escaping the slum and squalor of slumerica. In spite of becoming credentialed, he failed in being educated. He absorbed and never weaned himself of the crude values of the coarse and tough mining town. He revered turning out for football and boxing and adulated coaches. Yet, in the absence of ethical-philosophical growth, the true qualities of becoming educated, he never once (like autobios or even scholarly accounts of Nixon, Ford, LBJ, Eisenhower, etc.) focuses on becoming educated. Turning out for football and boxing and being subordinated to the exploitative bureaucratic processing of sports bureaucracies is all dominating. Reid does not grasp that organized sports bureaucracies have bludgeoned the educational system. Coaches at many universities may earn 2 to 8 times more than their presidents and academic corruption related to sports is epidemic across the U.S. It is crucial to grasp the fact that senior American politicians totally avoid this issue and cannot even admit it nor understand it nor reform it. In this sense, Reid is like the ones he correctly criticizes, namely, Bush, Rumsfeld, et al.
   
   Like Bush, Reid has a history degree and like Bush exhibits few signs of having learned the wisdom of history. Instead, as most senior politicians, he perpetuates the myth of the "Great Country," the myth of U.S. soldiers being "the most thoughtful" and "poised 18 year-olds anywhere." (He needs to read Chalmers Johnson, et al. and look at comparative crime rates of U.S. bases abroad, for a start). Above all, he adheres to the invalid and dangerous notion--which one doesn't find in most nations--that the military dispenses liberties. While advocating not using the Yucca site for nuclear storage, he evades completely how nuclear tests and other military activities have spread nuclear contamination and toxicities not just across his home state Nevada, but across all of the U.S. so that the clean-up cost will bludgeon the living standard and tie millstones around the necks of all U.S. taxpayers--if such contamination can even be cleaned up. Amazing how he is totally unaware that military-derived poisons across the U.S. have become a noticeable cause of diseases and deaths.
   
   After marrying, Reid embraced religion though he does not tell why, leaving the suspicion it was, as is the case with many politicians, for political posturing. He entitled his book "The Good Fight" which may have been derived from the Bible though it may also echo his coarse background and patronizing boxing fights of Mohammed Ali in Las Vegas' ambience.
   
   Nevertheless, Senator Reid acquires unquestionable moral stature in the direction of Fulbright during the Vietnam era when he, with sincerity, exposes, criticizes and tries to correct Bush's massive deceptions, violation of laws and war crimes. This is THE crucial and most important issue and here Reid redeems himself successfully.
   
   But again, had he familiarized himself with the facts before the Iraq war broke out by reading foreign news accounts (which gave plenty of correct info), he could have avoided voting for the war. Thus, the excuse that Bush misled Congress won't fly. It was the pressure of the junior high school political pep rally mentality which kow-towed Congress into submission.
   
   Reid does not seem to be aware that social security and other policies, which he affirms and defends are adopted from foreign countries. He states that they made "America great." The fact that ecological policies are also coming from abroad (as corrective measures did with the car industry, with inflation and the educational system, etc.) denies the validity of Reid's characterization that the U.S. is as "self-correcting as any society ever to have existed." The fact remains that slumerica has not been corrected since his birth: 75 to 80 hour work-weeks are more common here than abroad, the infrastructure is dilapidated, huge overwhelming debts everywhere, massive trade deficits, a constantly declining dollar and no savings rate.
   
   Thus, the greatest failing of Reid's book, namely, no focus on America's economic conditions, nothing about the mortgage mess, the stock market corruption and the S and L imbroglio, etc. and, above all, no comparison how other nations without many resources have no grinding poverty that characterizes slumerica. For someone who came from slumerica, this is puzzling and should cause him to read "Why the U.S. Needs an Economic Miracle" accessible at "http://comparativegems.blogspot.com/".
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   



2. With the exception of 1 or 2 chapters early on, the book was a page turner. I couldn't put it down. The book is a worthwhile read whatever your political persuasion.
   
   Jerry



3. "The Good Fight" explains well why Harry Reid is a good Democrat on most social issues.
   
   Growing up in a shack with an outhouse in half-dead Searchlight, Nev., in the New Deal, he learned about the hope and support government programs can offer to people on the edge.
   
   Searchlight is detailed with warts, vivid colors and all by Reid. So, too, are his parents.
   
   Beyond that, the best part of the book was Reid's discussion of his years as chairman of the Nevada Gaming Commission. While he doesn't go into a tell-all of Mob influence over Vegas casinos, he gives the reader enough information to see how much the city needed cleaning up. And, with Reid presiding over the commission at the time non-Mafiosi like Steve Wynn and Kirk Kerkorian started building, he was part of Vegas' transition to the world of today.
   
   That said, the Washington years are somewhat thin. All Democrats are great, as is independent Joe Lieberman on anything besides Iraq. The difficulty of herding cats as Senate Majority Leader is discussed in brief, but not too much on any one issue or vote.
   
   Nor do we hear anything about how Obama-Clinton has played out inside the Senate Democratic caucus. I would have loved to hear Reid drop a few "fly on the wall" comments.
   
   So, this is a three/four star book, but I give it a bump, in part with the context of people one-starring the book for other reasons.



4. There are plenty of rags-to-riches stories in America, but there are few that read with so much candor. Senator Reid's deadpan humor also comes thru. I highly recommend this book - if you're a Democrat, to learn a bit more about your party's unassuming leader; if you're a Republican, to get a leg up one hell of an opponent!



5. I would first like to make it clear that I am not what you would call a political "animal". Though of course I knew that Harry Reid is a United States Senator, I did not buy this book for his political beliefs or stance on current issues. I had seen a couple of interviews with him on TV regarding this book that all centered on his "hard-scrabble" background and family issues, and that's what led to me to buy this book. I don't know of any American today who isn't sick and tired of this "ENDLESS- PRIMARY-ELECTION" with its continuous mud-slinging, back-stabbing, lies and innuendos. Maybe it's just the season, but Senator Reid's political chapters seem to be infected with the same diatribes. BUT...
   
   The rest of the book which entails Reid's personal life is ABSOLUTELY FASCINATING! I think maybe the Senator didn't realize how interesting and entertaining his tales of his days as a lawyer and the CHAIRMANSHIP OF THE NEVADA GAMING COMMISSION are. Harry was born in a tiny mining town in Searchlight, Nevada. The leading industry in town when he was born wasn't mining, it was prostitution. Searchlight had thirteen whorehouses and no churches. As a child, Harry learned how to swim at a whorehouse. His parents had problems with alcohol and at times would have physical fights in front of their children. Harry's statement regarding this situation is what starts to endear the reader to this "man" rather than politics. "I AM NOT CONFESSIONAL BY NATURE, SO SOME OF THESE THINGS ARE SURPASSING HARD FOR ME TO SAY. I LOVED MY PARENTS VERY MUCH. THEY GAVE LIFE EVERYTHING THEY HAD. BUT NO CHILD SHOULD BE RAISED THE WAY I WAS RAISED." The house he was raised in was nothing more than a shack made out of railroad ties. His Father was fifty-seven-years-old when he committed suicide by shooting himself in the head. "The last year of his life, he had been sober-no more masking his demons with alcohol. Harry and his brothers still joke that it was being sober that killed him."
   
   The author shares a number of his legal cases that ranged from "Martinez v. Safeway. This was one of many cases that Harry's firm did not want him to handle, since the client had no money. Harry defended Joyce Martinez a cocktail waitress who was arrested at her place of work for supposedly writing bad checks. She not only didn't write the checks but Safeway thinking it was above the law, skipped steps that needed to be taken during the legal process. Harry won the case and Joyce's award was the largest in history in a case of malicious prosecution. Another case he defended against was entitled: "United States of America vs. Four Machine Guns and One Silencer.
   
   In 1972 Howard Hughes owned five hotels in Las Vegas and no one in Vegas had seen him. As Chairman of the Nevada Gaming Commission Harry was ordered by the Governor to get Howard Hughes to appear at a meeting, or Hughes's gaming licenses would be revoked. Harry's reaction was: "He had not granted an interview in twenty years. HE HAS NOT BEEN SEEN IN TWENTY YEARS, and you want me to arrange a meeting with a man who had refused to see ANYONE for decades. Okay, I would do it." Harry had to track down the "Mormon Mafia", who were a group of loyal employees that Hughes had surrounded himself with. "Hughes felt that because of their devout faith, they were the only people he could trust." They tracked Hughes down in Europe and arranged a one hour meeting in London. The Governor and the Chairman of the Nevada Gaming Control Board flew to London and met with Hughes for one hour. Reid never got to meet him face to face but the Governor told him that Hughes "looked emaciated, with sunken eyes, free-range fingernails, and a mop of long, stringy hair." After the meeting Hughes's gaming license was renewed.
   
   There was an incident while Harry was gaming commissioner when he was approached by an underworld character and offered a bribe. Harry became part of a sting operation and when the FBI burst into the room to arrest the mob guy, Harry lost his temper and thought "How could they think they could do this to me? I was so angry I went up to the gangster and said: You SOB, you tried to bribe me! I lunged at the gangster and got him in a choke hold. I was in a rage. The FBI agents had to pull me off of the criminal." Harry and his family started to get death threats and they even tried to bomb his cars. Harry decided then to get into politics.
   
   As I said in the opening of my review, Senator Reid might not fully appreciate how fascinating and engaging his stories are. He says he has many more of them. I would wholeheartedly recommend the Senator write another book fully dedicated to the non-political parts of his life. Near the very end of the book, Harry receives a request from his sixteen-year-old granddaughter, as part of a project in her school to have a family member write about an experience that helped shape their testimony about faith. One part of his response touched me deeply, and I couldn't think of a better way to end my review.
   
   "MY OUTLOOK ON LIFE -MY-FAITH- IS BEST SUMMARIZED BY AN INSCRIPTION FOUND IN A COLOGNE, GERMANY, CELLAR WHERE JEWS HID FROM THE NAZIS WHICH READ, "I BELIEVE IN THE SUN EVEN WHEN IT IS NOT SHINING. I BELIEVE IN LOVE EVEN WHEN NOT FEELING IT. I BELIEVE IN G-D EVEN WHEN HE IS SILENT."

5 comments about Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Champion of Freedom.

1. Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Champion of Freedom
   
   What can you say? It's a thoroughly researched, skillfully wound tale of a man who has no statesman-like comparison in modern American history. I'm an 'Eisenhower Republican' - though, I fear we're a dying breed - however, remark at the leadership and undying dedication to country this magnificently flawed giant of a president consistently demonstrated throughout the course of his illustrious political career.
   
   It's exhaustively researched and fact packed, to be sure - but will nary leave you wanting to leave this bulky work on the nightstand before dozing off. Whether you agree or disagree with FDR's policies or tactics, this book is never tendentious and should appeal to readers across political spectrum and ideologies....the way a masterful biography should, in this humble history junkies mind.
   
   Fans of Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt may want to pick up a separate bio for her life story, as Black certainly does not treat her with kid gloves. However, this book accurately hones in on the key subject - FDR - and Lord Black sticks to his prime subject matter with uncompromising rigdity, a keen focus and honesty.
   
   Bravo. I promise to read more of Mr. Black as a result of this admirable and impressive work.
   
   - Johnny Concannon



2. It took a month to receive my book; I was happy with it once it arrived, but the slowness was a problem.



3. We would be remiss to not credit Washington with defining the parameters of the powers of the Presidency, but for all intent and purposes, as far as impact is concerned, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was the greatest President in the nation, including Lincoln. We must remember that history tends to overestimate martyrdom. As good as Lincoln was, he was never tested in a peace time setting.
   Conrad Black has written the definitive and best book on the great FDR, hands down. Far from being a fawning soft sell, "Champion Of Freedom" is very fair, and Black does not hesitate to discuss Roosevelt's shortcomings, as well as his triumphs. It is an incredibly thoughtful read, and the research is amazing.
   Roosevelt could, at times, be calculating, devious and even mean, especially toward political enemies. This was fair game, however, and in a world where deceit and hidden agendas permeate every action, Roosevelt simply was a mile ahead of everybody else and played the politics game better than anybody ever had before, or will again.
   His concern for the working man, the New Deal and landmark programs like the WMA put America to work when there was none to be had. Some lunk headed conservatives claim he stole the work from industry, but that is pure bull. We have Social Security, the Labor Relations Act, and a great park system because of Roosevelt's domestic programs. As far as a wartime president, his foresight and action was almost divinely inspired, and may well have been.
   While critics blame him for Pearl Harbor, Black points out that Roosevelt, who loved the Navy and was Assistant Secretary to the Navy in WWI, would never have deliberately put the men of Pearl Harbor in harm's way as it happened. Rather, he had expected the admirals to be fully prepared for possible attack, and was aghast (albeit privately) at the incompetence shown at Pearl Harbor, which should have been more than able to put up a very good fight against the Japanese attackers. True, he expected war, and knew that the sooner, the better once our armed forces were ready, and that was well underway.
   This is just one revelation of a very complex man who was regarded in Messianic proportions by the populace and by the world at large. Black is a master writer, and truly has created a masterpiece worthy of its subject. For serious history and Roosevelt fans, it's a must have.



4. We gave two copies of this book for Christmas this year. The recipients have had nothing but great things to say.



5. This one was a tough read - 1134 pages and a couple of laps around the world later I finished - but it was definitely worth the time. While not as readable as David McCullough, Conrad Black not only tells the amazing story of FDR, but also puts you right in the middle of this pivotal time in American History. Sometimes vindictive, often underestimated, FDR's ability to lead and leverage public opinion is unmatched by any modern day president. The complicated relationship between Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill was navigated with great expertise. The personalities surrounding him - Eleanor, Teddy Roosevelt's side of the family, Stimson, Smith, MacArthur, Patton, Eisenhower, etc. are cause to hit the Barnes and Noble shop again soon for a few more biographies. If you like American history and biographies, this book comes with my recommendation.

5 comments about Sharon and My Mother-in-Law: Ramallah Diaries.

1. After reading this book, I enjoyed the funny tune that Amiry used to get to the point. But it is not even close to show the real suffering of people under occupation and harsh living condition with an enemy that is trying viciously to erase the Palestinian identity and spread rumors that it was a land without people. Another myth spread by jews.
   As a Palestinian American, just visiting Palestine was a pain. Not as bad as the pain Palestinian face every day of their life. I wasn't too sure if some of the comments here made any sense. I understand that these are from Israelis that think they have right to that land.
   They claim to suffer because every once awhile they are faced with a bombing, some calamity, or a lose of a loved one. But millions of Palestinians in the Diaspora are faced with the same issues in addition to a sever feeling of "waking up EVERY DAY having no land" to live in or say that this is their homeland. Please don't say that these Palestinians can live in other Arab countries. If this is the case, then similarly, jews can go and live back where they came from. And don't say, this was the promise land because jews originally came from Egypt then ran away to Palestine. Jews had existed in the Middle East, but majority of them converted to Christianity and Islam. Whoever was left was having a good life there, better than other Arabs inmost cases.
   Most of the jews in Palestine are from east Europe, not even from the Middle East. They started to migrate in the late 1800's when the Ottoman empire was getting week and the rich Russian jews in addition to Hitler's plan to get red of his jews. Jews used the British influence to get a better access to Palestinian land. Especially during the British mandate, the British, used an Islamic law, Waqf, which means "for the sake of God", to confiscate land and give it to the jews. During the Ottoman Empire and according to the Islamic law, land belongs to the Islamic state (Ottomans). When Ottomans lost in the WWI, Britain took over and took all the land, and helped the jews steal other private land.



2. As an Israeli living in the US, I was looking forward for an eye-opener on life in Ramallah.
   This may have been cute as emails, yet as a book it is one long tedious collection of cliches, full of self-pity, and quite hard to feel any real sorrow beacuase of the "Party-line" style.
   My Jewish family, too, had to flee their home in Arab hostile Morocco. We recently visited and it was quite nostalgic! We do have a life in our new-found countries.
   So 2 words:
   As a book, it stinks;
   Have a life already.



3. I read this book within a day, I just couldn't put it down, it was so beautifully written, and so easy to read.
   Suad Amiry has a remarkable ability to say in one sentence what other writers take three pages over. A single sentence can be so thought-provoking, you consider all the many implications that follow from just one statement.
   Despite the misery of her situation, Suad's defiance of her occupiers is hilarious - what a courageous and spunky woman! Her frankness and honesty of her own feelings, including her failings, are also very impressive.
   Well done to Suad Amiry, I eagerly look forward to her next book - I hope she will write one!



4. Arafat and my hot flashes - an Israeli response to Suad Amiry's Sharon and my Mother-in-Law.
   
   After reading Suad Amiry's novel Sharon and my mother in law I was extremely moved ... as an Israeli, living in Tel-Aviv at ta time when all around me people were "bursting at the Seams" or merely committing suicide at their leisure while taking other people's lives, limbs, children and women with them, I could identify myself with her agony at not being able to move freely...
   
   It was Saturday eve; I always felt weird on Saturday eve, uneasy. On a verge of a panic attack. Maybe it was to do with the gloom I experienced at home, as a child on Sat. eve (My mother was a BA -graduate of Auschwitz). It was exactly 2 years ago, me and my not-such-a-great-hero, husband, who was an extremely gifted and intelligent man but the biggest coward if there's ever was one, were having a row, after a long week ... I wanted to venture out. Out of doors...out of our building; living in Tel Aviv had become a Russian roulette ... the streets were very quiet and empty ... not a dog in sight, the stray cats had totally disappeared, everyone was waiting for the next one, and we didn't know where it would come from. I wanted to go to the movies.
   "Are you out of your mind?!!!" Gideon screamed. I couldn't sit at home anymore I had to go out. To a coffee place, "A coffee place?!!! Now?!!" Only yesterday one of the most popular coffee places in Tel Aviv blew up.
   "Ok then, the bar around the corner is always empty! Why would a suicide bomber come there, to kill us and the barman?". I thought that was reasonable enough.
   "I don't know why?" argued Gideon back "he might just get fed up half way to the Hilton, did you think about that?".
   I tried the movies, again.
   "Crowded places?!!! Hello? Anybody home?", pointing at my head.
   "but we never had a suicider at the cinema!!", I tried to reason.
   "Exactly!!!", exclaimed Gideon with a big smile, winning the argument.
   
   I felt a hot flash coming on. It was August and I just had to have some air. "I don't care!!!", I screamed, "I am going out!!! Now!"
   
   All of a sudden a siren was heard, and another one and another one, a string of sirens always meant a suicide bomber, and the ambulances were rushing to the scene. We looked at each other with terror and turned on the TV. There was a suicide bomber at Michael's Pub, a few minutes away from us. It was my son's favorite hang out; thank God he had been living in Holland for the last few years. He didn't even come home for a visit; I wouldn't let him, my only son...
   
   Gideon, quickly rushed to the phone to ring his three children (from his 2 ex wives) they were all in their twenties ... that was his usual routine, every time a bomber hit the town. Then he would take his clooney (Cloonex - a tranquilizer) I was always angry when he took it, being a practitioner of Chinese medicine, it was totally against my principals. But he couldn't care less. He was slowly becoming addicted to clooney.
   
   We stayed at home glued to the TV watching the horrible scenes of children, women, blood, screaming, etc etc. Gideon began his usual snores beside me, the clooney had knocked him out!
   
   The next day we heard on the news that Palestinians were under curfew ....
   
   There are always three sides to every divorce: the wife, the husband and the truth...
   
   We are having a terrible, endless bloody row: it's time to stop talking about the past. I would expect an educated person like Suad not to live in the past, but to accept our existence in Israel and to start talking from that point. We have no where else to go, and the experience of living as a Jew outside Israel has not been very successful ... I could attach a picture of my mother's green number tattooed on her arm, she is only 74, she was 12 when they took her to the camps, one of the last survivors in the world ... Tell me Suad, the truth: this is not about the occupied territories. Barak begged Arafat to take it back. This is about Jaffa...according to your book. Do you expect my mother to go back to Czechoslovakia? And look for her confiscated home? And what about me? I was born here, am I to take a dive in the sea?
   
   Yours sincerely,
   
   Yael Stern O'Dwyer



5. I enjoyed reading this book but was chilled at the author's inclusion of "1929" as a year of Palestinian "pride" without mention of the atrocities of the Hebron pogroms. "Text without context is pretext" as the PLO's old friend Jesse Jackson used to remind us. Tom Segev's One Palestine, Complete: Jews and Arabs Under the British Mandate (which alot of Amazon reviewers think has an anti-Zionist bias) would be a good corrective for the reader new to these issues.
   
   Amiry is not a fanatic or a fundamentalist and this is her P.O.V. and her life. Can she address the moral failures of the Palestinian leadership, beginning with the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and ending in Hamas? Maybe, but this is not that book.

5 comments about The Confidante: Condoleezza Rice and the Creation of the Bush Legacy.

1. I thoroughly enjoyed this book. I'd say it's essential reading for anyone who follows current events on any level. The writing is both direct and engaging and the author provides background and context in each chapter without overcomplicating. I really felt like a Washington insider with access to fascinating accounts of behind-the-scenes negotiations. Kessler's treatment of Rice is even-handed; he highlights her dedication, drive, poise and intelligence but also holds her accountable for failed outcomes and missteps. Reading the New York Times is a whole new experience now - I have a much deeper understanding of the issues and people in the news. Highly recommended!



2. No one denies that Condi Rice is a talented and hard-working diplomat, but Kessler's excellent book chronicles a series of missed diplomatic opportunities during her tenure, inviting one to consider how effective Rice has been as Secretary of State during Bush's second term. Rice initially built a strong and brilliant team under deputy secretary Robert Zoellick, and some of the success stories Kessler describes took place while Zoellick was at the helm.
   
   While Rice had a public profile and was popular with the public during her time on the NSC, once she ascended to role of Secretary of State, she sought systematically to raise her public profile, and to do so largely through a series of media spalshes accompanied by high fashion statements. Rice focused heavily on image. Perhaps the most salient example of a woman in power who used fashion to great effect is Margaret Thatcher, who was a relentless implementer; Kessler demonstrates that once Rice launched initiatives, her execution and implementation were weak, and apparently style trumped substance. Rice does dress the part, carries it off well, and clearly enjoys being a leading fashionista. Dean Acheson also dressed extremely well, but this was probably secondary to his diplomatic skill, and in any case his sartorial statements were not on prominent media display during his trips abroad, although I imagine had he appeared for dinner in Saudi Arabia, as Rice did, wearing flowing white slik with gold pinstripes threaded through the fabric, that would have changed quickly. But if the most innovative fashion statement conservatives can muster is the adoption the solid-color necktie look pioneered by James Baker, then we should welcome Rice's attempts to raise the bar.
   
   While Rice is known to be extremely bright, she appears to compensate for a lack of strategic intellectual firepower with a highly developed sense of performance. Splendid performances can go a long way in diplomacy, it seems, but Rice's tenure has been marked by unlucky breaks and wrong-footed initiatives which Kessler does an outstanding job of covering, while simultaneously guiding us through some of the major foreign policy challenges of the last few years with skill and brevity. The book's title, however, suggests that a more detailed examination of the Rice-Bush relationship would be on offer, with insight into how she became so influential with Bush, if indeed she is exceptionally influential with the President. Here the book falls short, but is nonetheless an essential read for anyone seeking to understand Rice's leadership, or lack of it, during a few turbulent years. Interestingly, as she was provost of a highly complex university and managed a stable of world-class talent, she seems to have brought no managerial skill at all to the running of the Department of State, neglecting to tap the vast resources available there and demonstrating her tacit acceptance of the Bush style of a closed inner circle that doesn't look beyond its own resources or mental models. Rice brings to the table an outstanding set of personal and intellectual qualities, but if Kessler's book is accurate, she may not have the chops to take on a future leadership role in electoral politics. One can only wish her well in the remaining months of her term, but Kessler provides little comfort that major breakthroughs are to be expected, particularly in the mid-east, where Rice has declared her intent to bring peace and stability, and realize the President's stated goal of fostering a Palestinian state. Even now, her role in managing other issues, such as those presented by Iran, seems less than siginficant.



3. "In the spirit of Yom Kippur, the United States will not hold Israel to any agreements obligating them to accept Dollars as payment for their foreign aid. We will translate our obligations into Euros or whatever currency that best fits Israel's needs. We need to place our Israeli obligations at the top of our national priority list. Israel should not suffer any inconvenience due to currency fluctuations" -Condoleezza Rice 09/21/2007
   
   Soon OPEC and others will demand equal consideration and there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth all across this once great country.



4. Never much one for politics, I began reading this book only because my father was reading it and had vehemently recommended it to me. However, upon picking it up and reading just a few short pages, I was hooked. The book provides a riveting portrait of one of the most important women, no, one of the most important people in our country. Rice was once believed to have had a substantial chance of becoming the first female president, but lost that chance through foolish political choices. This book shows Rice's weaknesses and her strengths, and portrays her admirable if not greatly successful attempts to fix her mistakes. The insider point of view Kessler offers as a journalist who followed Rice closely provides a wonderful personal touch to the examination of her character, and, in some ways, despite her controversial choices, one cannot help but admire her core of steel and her keen intelligence and sarcastic wit.



5. Kessler's thesis is two-fold: (1) Rice has spent her years as Secretary of State saddled with the impossible task of trying to undo the damage that she did in Bush's first term as a National Security Advisor who fell under the sway of the administration's neoconservative ideologues. (2) Despite keeping up the most frenetic travel schedule of any Secretary of State since Kissinger, Rice's performance has been a series of missed opportunities attributable to a lack of any coherent strategic vision. As a reporter "on the plane" with Rice, Kessler is able to give you a detailed and psychologically nuanced look at Rice and the other players, foreign and domestic. It is a finely observed rendition of a disaster in the making, made all the more poignant by the fact that Rice herself is portrayed as a brilliant, talented, strong, energetic, attractive, and even charismatic person who might have played a constructive role in the world had she attached herself to a more competent mentor. As a reporter, Kessler stops short of articulating what he thinks an appropriate foreign-policy agenda might have looked like and tends to judge Rice's performance in relation to the goals that the she and the Administration set for themselves. But the book's agnosticism is part of its attraction, as it gets you thinking about your own foreign-policy values and commitments. What would a good response to the Hezbollah-Israeli war have looked like? What role should democracy and human rights play in foreign policy--and does an excessive focus on those values make a country end up looking hypocritical as idealism comes into contact with reality and inevitably becomes compromised? When is refusing to negotiate directly with a dangerous outlaw state like North Korea a useful tool, and when does it become an impediment to achieving important goals, like nuclear nonproliferation? Kessler's book doesn't answer these questions, but raises them in such an intriguing way as to ensure that it will still be attracting readers long after Rice has left the public stage--whenever that may be.

5 comments about Franklin Delano Roosevelt (The American Presidents).

1. This abridged version is read by Richard Rohan & he even tries his hand at FDR inflections. This is a pretty good overview of FDR's life,but you wouldn't expect much depth with 3.5 hrs. running time on a CD. Roy Jenkins died shortly after or maybe a little before this was completed. Arthur Schlesinger jr. edited. But the tone gets more reveverential towards the end. Not really Jenkins style so maybe Mr. Schlesinger finished. But there is no doubt that FDR was the most influential president of the 20th century. His impact is still very much with us.



2. The New Deal, Social Security, World War II. FDR was the greatest president of the 20th century. He was a polio victim with braces on his legs. Perhaps America needed such a leader to get it through the Depression and the war with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. We have seen the video of FDR addressing Congress following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor: "December 7, 1941, a day which will live in infamy!" Americans volunteered for military service in droves. They fought the Japs island by island. Army engineers built the Alaska Highway, stretching 1500 miles from Dawson Creek, Canada to Fairbanks. After Pearl Harbor, the fear was that Japan might take Alaska. Japan bombed the two western-most Aleutian Islands. Roosevelt was president the same years Adolph Hitler was in power in Germany, 1933-45. Roosevelt and his staunch ally, Winston Churchill, proved tougher than Hitler. Roosevelt was elected 4 times as there was no two-term limit. Roosevelt's archrival, Hitler, was born in 1889 in the Austrian town of Braunau. In his youth, Hitler wanted to be an artist. He lived and struggled in Vienna. It was there that he came to hate Jews and Communists. He believed in an Aryan master race. He fought against Britain in World War I. He joined the Nazi Party and went to prison after a failed coup. Hitler dictated Mein Kampf (My Struggles) to Rudolf Hess in prison. After his release, he reorganized the Nazi Party and surrounded himself with men like Himmler, Goebbels and Goering. Hitler became German chancellor in 1933. World War II began when Germany invaded Poland in 1939. Germany occupied France, bombed London and attacked Russia. The United States entered the war after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Americans landed at Normandy Beach on the coast of France on D-Day, June 6, 1944, and drove the Germans back. They met their Russian allies, who poured in from the east to crush the Nazis. Hitler and his companion, Eva Braun, committed suicide. It came to light that 6 million Jews had been exterminated in what is now called the Holocaust. America helped to rebuild Europe with the Marshall plan. Donald Rumsfeld's "Old Europe" became a suburb of the U.S. in light of the Soviet threat. The time has come the United States to put itself first. If the U.S is going to police the world, the world must pay for that protection. Police cannot work for free. Government is about war and money. Too often, it is a gang of thugs terrorizing its own people. Government should exist to serve. Its best form is democratic, not totalitarian, neither fascist nor Communist. Government needs to foster education, promote arts and sciences and care for the aged and disabled. It must encourage agriculture and facilitate transportation and communication.



3. avoid books where the author's personality and florid prose obscure the subject. besides, what precisely does jenkins have against short sentences and one-dollar words?



4. The late Roy Jenkins, in assessing Roosevelt, rates him in the top three of all American Presidents, along with Washington and Lincoln. Whether you like FDR or whether you are one of his critics, it is hard to dispute Jenkins' conclusion. Jenkins believes that had FDR not run for a third term, he would have been one of the better, near great Presidents, but that it took WWII to make him the icon he became. Jenkins fails to point out that FDR did not create any appreciable number of private sector jobs prior to WWII and that, in fact, unemployment was almost as high as it was eight years earlier, when he took office. The reason may be that Jenkins had been a Labour Party member of the House of Commons, accordingly, his world view was that of a government interventionist. However, I ultimately agree that nontheless, FDR was, at least, a better than average President during the depression years, due to the great optimism that he conveyed.
   
   I believe that Jenkins is correct, that FDR became one of the greatest Presidents due to the war. He led the United States in a great mobilization effort. Certainly, responding to events can make one great and FDR's optimistic leadership during the war made him great. This does not mean that he is beyond criticism, and Jenkins offers very little of that. Again, as a Labour party menmber, he would not have been as staunchly anticommunist as a Conservative, such as Churchill or later, Thatcher. Therefore, he spares FDR of any criticism for Yalta. His view is that since the USSR already occupied Poland, there was nothing to give away.
   
   I must contrast this book with another book in the American Presidents series, Tom Wicker's biography of Eisenhower. Wicker could find almost nothing Ike did as President that did not deserve criticism. Jenkins, on the other hand, finds little, in FDR, to criticise. An example is his absolving FDR from any real criticism for not taking in more Jewish refugees during the holocaust.
   
   This series of books constitues short biographies, thus it is not possible for the authors to be comprehensive. However, Jenkins covers a lot of ground. He gives a lot of coverage to FDR's career prior to his presidency. This is something Wicker failed to do, in his biography of Eisenhower, regarding Eisenhower's prepresidential career. Still, there was much Jenkins could not cover. For example, FDR went to great legnths to hide his disability. In a television documentary, it was revealed that he always would hang on to the arm of either a secret service agent or one of his sons and, by pretty much thrusting his hips forward, would give the illusion of walking. The legnths FDR went to are certainly fascinating but, I recognize that this book was too short to cover it in depth.
   
   Perhaps this biography was a little too adoring. The fact that there is much to criticise does not detract from the fact, that ultimately, FDR was indeed one of the truly great Presidents. Still, Jenkins covers a lot of material and I highly recommend this short biography.



5. This is a very good brief introduction to Roosevelt, and I highly recommend it to anyone wanting a brief understanding of Roosevelt. It is very easy to read and suitable for high school students. Being written by a man from Britain, it also shows how the world views FDR - as one of the most important leaders in world history.
   
   You will not acquire a thorough understanding of FDR by reading this book. For that I would suggest the huge "Champion of Freedom" by Conrad Black.
   
   In response to Mister Syzek, my understanding the post-war settlement is that Stalin broke violated the Yalta agreement, which was quite favorable to the west. FDR achieved most of what he wanted, including the stipulation that Eastern Europe was to have elections. But Stalin broke his promises and controlled Poland despite the agreements that FDR was able to extract from Stalan. FDR got the deal in writing. Stalin did not abide by it.
   
   Stalin was determined to control Poland no matter what, so Poland was firmly in his grip, despite what the actual terms of the agreement said. Staling went so far as to say that it was "a matter of life or death."
   
   Franklin Roosevelt was a geopolitical realist, and the reality is that the Soviet armies controlled Eastern Europe and Poland, and the USSR would be willing to fight - and win - to stay. The American people had no enthusiasm for yet another world war againt Russia. They wanted their soldiers home. Maybe you should ask the American people why they were not willing to suffer 5 million killed for Poland. You see, in America you must deal with these pesky things called voters and democracy.
   
   To complicate the matter, the Soviet Union took the brunt of the war (17 million dead), and Stalin was rigidly determined to secure a buffer between Mother Russia and Western Europe. Stalin would not have budged on his goal.
   
   So what Roosevelt obtained from Stalin was the best he could obtain - firm promises from Stalin to hold elections. It was Stalin who broke his promises. That made the Soviet Union look like the bad guy.
   
   Truman then waged the Cold War (without the millions of dead from a hot war) leading to an eventual liberation of Eastern Europe. It's no surprise that Reagan was a huge fan of Roosevelt, voted for him four times, and attended his third inauguration (a moving event for Reagan). Reagan then brought an end to the Cold War without firing a shot.
   
   You may be able to criticize Truman for not liberating Eastern Europe while American had a monopoly on the atomic bomb... or Eisenhower. After all, USSR staged a coup in Czechoslovakia and then staged a brutal crushing of the revolt in Hunguary in which tens of thousands were killed. Clearly this was in violation of the agreement that FDR was able to extract from Stalin. It was the USSR that broke the agreement. FDR did not sell out anyone.
   
   Then again, maybe the path Truman took was wise. Maybe waging a long-term cold against USSR was better than a violent real war. Maybe FDR realized that no European-based power has ever conquered Russia. Remember Napolean? Remember Hitler? Could even USA have defeated USSR in 1945? Maybe Roosevelt would have done things differently. We will never know because he died.
   
   As this book says, FDR was clearly moving to a get-tough posture against USSR. Indeed, FDR moved closer to one of his advisors who was anti-USSR. I suggest you read this book.
   
   At the same time, Roosevelt was an idealist in the Wilsonian tradition when realistic. He believed in the free determination of free people, but he was also realistic. For example, he essentially pushed for an end to world colonialism in his design for the post-war world. Churchill opposed this but he could do nothing about it. The British empire was too weak.
   
   By the way, Poland was not even a country at the start of World War One and was viewed by some in a similar way to the Baltic States of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia. Should American have gone to war over the Baltic States?
   
   This fine little book is a fine introduction to Roosevelt. It is the best brief book on Roosevelt. Read it if you want an easy introduction to FDR.
   
   If you want a more detailed study of Roosevelt's foreign policy then read Robert Dallek's Bancroft Prize-winning "Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy." My essay here pales in comparison. Or read Conrad Black's "Champion of Freedom."

5 comments about Disturbing the Peace: A Conversation with Karel Huizdala.

1. We Americans tend to forget that Vaclav Havel was an Artist, poet, writer and existentialist thinker long before we seized upon him as our own private "anti-communist hero extraordinaire." And as with most other things, we in the West tended to "fixate" on Havel as just the one-man anti-Communist sideshow: the singleton hero of the Prague Spring. That is to say, we saw in him only what we wanted to see -- only what was comfortable for our myopic vision and only what tended to calm our democratic sensibilities. For had we looked and drank just a bit deeper, there was a lot more of this self-made "artist turned political activist," to see than just our knee-jerk recreation of him through our own eyes as our own larger-than-life anti-Communist hero.
   
   This book offers another vision of him that looks deeper into his very troubled, but nevertheless very important soul. Having had this book on my bookshelf, left unread for almost 20 years, this oversight alone makes me as guilty of seeing only the "shadow Havel as anti-Communist caricature," as the rest.
   
   In this very thoughtful series of autobiographical interviews, the "deeper Vaclav Havel," comes through loudly and clearly. And here I mean of course the one just beyond the popular anti-Communist Western created veneer. Havel has always used his very subtle, supple and artistic mind to become more than just an Anti-Communist firebrand. In the grand tradition of other Europeans, and more than anything else, he is an existentialist humanist thinker, with much practical advice for democrats. However his primary concerns have never been just with the fetishized political games that superpowers play. Whether they be the brutal class-based politics of Communism which, before it committed suicide, had morphed into a softer form of equally fetishized version of socialism; or about the equally brutal racist-based capitalist consumer-driven democracies, which as they begin to see their own self-inflicted deaths just over the horizon, have also morphed into a "kinder and gentler" form of American racism, or what amounts to about the same, Mandela's softer version of South African Apartheid: Either way, none of these has been Havel's primary concern.
   
   In this book we see Havel's real concerns spread out on the table, as he tells us how his keen sensibilities evolved until he learned to reject his own bourgeois class-based Communist upbringing. He learned to reject it because as he puts it "it gave me unearned privileges and alienated me from myself and from the rest of society in ways that could not be undone until I became aware enough to develop a refined sense of fairness, and until I could develop a "social emotion" that was antagonistic towards the class privileges I had inherited." Havel's "social emotion" was one that was also antagonistic towards unjust social barriers, and towards any pre-determined status awarded at birth, or based on the "false consciousness" of race superiority or any other forms of unearned status whose existence is designed specifically to humiliate, dominate and dehumanize others.
   
   Although Vaclav rebellion against his parent's wealth is classic and familiar to us in the U.S., he did not blame them -- as he saw them as decent people merely caught up in and locked into the social customs and way of life of their time, perhaps in the same way that we Americans do when we use the same lament to excuse our own parent's evils of Jim Crow and slavery. Like his American counterparts, Havel too, even as a member of the bourgeois, preferred a sensibility that sided with the oppressed rather than with the ruling class of which, through inheritance, he was a member in "good standing."
   
   However, unlike the typical American or South African racist, who would never grant moral superiority to those they oppress, even though classism was his natural inheritance, Havel opposed his social station at an almost instinctual level because with all of its undeserved advantages it was seen by him as morally inferior to those it oppressed. He also opposed it because of its inherited privileges, the sponging off of the powerless, due to its social injustices and the immoral barriers that tended to degrade man and condemned those it oppressed to the status of sub-humans. Havel said that by the time of the 1968 uprisings, he had become what he called "an emotional" and a "moral socialist." But even this was just a half way house on his journey to greater personal awareness and enlightenment.
   
   As his social consciousness evolved he began to see the crisis of the world as deeper than just particular ways of organizing the economies, their respective peculiar social arrangements, or the politics of a particular system. What he saw long before it became obvious to the rest of us, is that both the East and West are suffering from the same dilemma: a crisis of alienation, a malaise in which man is isolated from himself; a conflict between an impersonal, anonymous, irresponsible, corrupt and uncontrollable juggernaut of power (the power of mega-corporations, mega-technology, and mega-dollars in politics and mega-churchs), and the elemental and original interests of man as a concrete individual.
   
   In this sense, Havel sees this conflict in the same terms that Ernest Becker saw them: as a nostalgic loss of metaphysical certainties, a lack of a capacity to experience the transcendental, of any super-personal moral authority, or any kind of higher moral horizon. As he puts it: "As soon as man begins to consider himself the source of the highest meaning in the world he begins to lose his human dimension, and control of his humanity. We are going through a great departure from God, which has no parallel in history: we have become the first atheistic civilization."
   
   But again, as in the case with Becker, we must resist the temptation to force these comments about God and the need for a return to spiritualism, into our own facile, lifeless and morally compressed Procrustean Beds. His reference to God and an "extramundane authority" is similar to that of Professor Cornel West's version of his own self-styled version of "Chekovian Christianity:" They both represent "Existentialist revolutions" more than they represent traditional rearrangements of existing religious norms of morality. Anyway you cut it, both West and Havel's versions of "God" seek to drive the moneychangers from the Temple.
   
   Havel, Becker and West all put at the foot of our collective dilemma, man's arrogant anthropomorphism, in which he attempts to know and control everything. As we go about, bouncing between obscene consumption on the one hand and novel but obscene repression on the other, these great men all agree that we need to find a deeper sense of responsibility to the world and to something higher than ourselves. We need a new moral order based on returning man to his genuine human dimension, which can eventually lead to new social structures where personal humanity may again begins to rule supreme.
   
   Far be it for me to suggest that these great men and their shared vision may have missed an important point: that man's humanity is not what it used to be. It has changed and been transformed in fundamental, perhaps even in irretrievable, ways. We cannot "walk the cat back" to an earlier more pristine moral time. Moral ground zero has changed, perhaps forever. Like everything else, our humanity too has been corrupted. We can't un-ring that bell; there is no way to back.
   
   Sadly, the new humanity that we have created is what it is, period. There is lots of practical advice for democrats here, but Havel's larger message is, in my view, much more important.
   
   Ten Stars



2. Edit of 17 Apr 08 to add links.
   
   This book should be read as an adjunct to the author's other major book along these lines on power to the powerless.
   
   The most gripping and troubling conclusion that I drew from this book is that the United States of America is today much closer to where Czechoslovakia was in 1968 than anyone other than the Chomsky's and Vidal's might be willing to admit. We have both a federal government and a national corporate economy that thrives on elitist secrecy and blatant lies--even our non-profit sector is corrupt, from the Red Cross to United Way to many others. The people, the citizen-voters, truly have lost all power, as well as access to the information that might give them back the power, and this is indeed a black, absurdist-realist situation.
   
   On a more positive note, the author offers up, in the course of a long series of interviews, a number of ideas that are relevant to America today, as well as to any other emerging or re-emergent democracies in the making.
   
   1) Model of behavior. When arguing with the center of power, do not get side-tracked with ideological debates over right or wrong. Focus on very specific concrete things (e.g. term limits, campaign finance reform, neighborhood economics) and stick to your guns.
   
   2) Popular coalitions. Non-violent non-partisan popular coalitions are the core means of taking back the power. They represent a means for bring together groups of people from widely divergent backgrounds, with genuine social tolerance.
   
   3) Informal networks. Even under conditions of repression and censorship, informal networks of dissidents and quasi-dissidents can be effective in sharing information through samizdat publications. [With the Internet, these possibilities explode, although caution must be taken on the fringes since the Internet is easily monitored and the more radical leaders could be declared seditionist "combatants" ineligible for their rights as citizens...speaking of the Soviet Union, of course, not America.]
   
   4) Man versus Machine. Havel reaches his own conclusions founded in Czech literature and his own experience, with respect to the urgency of restoring the kinship and human connections that used to drive politics, economics, and other aspects of organized living. He is at one with Lionel Tiger among many others, with respect to the terribly consequences of the industrial era in terms of de-humanizing decision-making and allowing remote elites to treat individual workers as dispensable cogs in the machine, whose lives matter not a whit.
   
   5) Neighborhoods, Politics "From Below". He joins the authors of the Cultural Creatives (Paul Ray and Sherry Ruth Anderson) and of IMAGINE: What America Could be in the 21st Century (Marianne Williamson) in emphasizing the vital role that neighborhoods must play in any democracy. From political self-governance to sustainable economics to low-cost healthy agriculture to cultural cohesion, neighborhoods are the sin qua non of democracy--without active neighborhoods, one can go so far as to say, national democracy is a sham, a false theater, fully equivalent to the centralized, repressive, inefficient totalitarian control states of earlier eras.
   
   6) Small Numbers Can Make a Difference. I was struck by how few were the original dissidents and organizers--in some cases, 20-30 in number, in others 70-80. Earlier studies have suggested that Hitler took power over millions with just 25,000 people. One can only hope that the anti-thesis is true, and that the 50 million cultural creatives can take back the power by getting serious about organizing across neighborhoods and into a national network.
   
   7) Art and theater matter. Even under conditions of severe censorship and control, art and theater can be the manifestation of uncensored life, "life that spits on all ideology and all that lofty word of babble; a life that intrinsically resist(s) all forms of violence, all interpretations, all directives....here stood truth..."
   
   8) Absurdity is a warning. Nihilistic and absurd theater or other works of art are a caution. They "do not offer us consolation or hope (but) merely remind( ) us of how we are living: without hope.
   
   9) Truth can be misappropriated. The author experienced the misappropriation of his words and was both hurt and enlightened, ultimately creating a play about truth, the circumstances in which it is said, and the whom, why, and how of it.
   
   10) Great men doubt themselves. Most touching are the author's many retrospective and current references to his insecurities, to his doubting himself even as he made history and became President of Czechoslovakia.
   
   11) Writers live to tell the truth. This is certainly not true of most American writers who write for money, but it reflects the ideal and merits thought.
   
   12) Change the atmosphere. If you can do nothing else, strive for a moral mobilization and a change in the atmosphere of governance, at any level. We cannot even begin to conceive the magnitude of the positive changes that can occur overnight if the people begin to speak truth among themselves. Work toward a process "in which people's civic backbones (begin) to straighten again."
   
   13) Role of the intellectual. While I the reviewer would churlishly doubt that America has many intellectuals right now, the author's concluding words on the role of the intellectual strike me as very important: "...the intellectual should constantly disturb, should bear witness to the misery of the world, should be provocative by being independent, should rebel against all hidden and open pressure and manipulations, should be the chief doubter of systems, of power and its incantations, should be a witness to their mendacity."
   
   Any person concerned about the corruption and misdirection of their government and their corporate as well as non-profit entities, will be provoked and inspired by this book. It speaks to the future of human life as it might be, were we willing to stand up straight and be counted at citizen-voters, active at every level beginning with our own neighborhoods.
   
   Living in Truth: 22 Essays Published on the Occasion of the Award of the Erasmus Prize to Vaclav Havel
   Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom
   A Power Governments Cannot Suppress
   Leadership and the New Science: Discovering Order in a Chaotic World
   One from Many: VISA and the Rise of Chaordic Organization
   The Tao of Democracy: Using Co-Intelligence to Create a World That Works for All
   Society's Breakthrough!: Releasing Essential Wisdom and Virtue in All the People
   The World Cafe: Shaping Our Futures Through Conversations That Matter
   Collective Intelligence: Creating a Prosperous World at Peace



3. Other reviews are right on the money in terms of this being a very good book and of course it covers many key elements of the events and times during the changes in Czechoslovakia. However the are several key messages, and lessons for anyone interested in managing, motivating and leading people; particularly through difficult or uncharted changes. There are also some good reflections on the role, character and nature of theater and other individual and group activities in the arts.



4. This is a fine book about an amazing man. I was truly inspired by Vaclav Havel after reading this book. This book is an "easy read" even though it is largely about weighty matters. It is an interesting and enlightening book.



5. Whenever I need a moral boost I go back and reread Vaclav Havel's
   "Disturbing the Peace". This book is a series of essays by the
   dissident Vaclav Havel that were smuggled out of communist
   Czechoslovakia and translated by a Havel friend in the West. Vaclav
   Havel was a playwright who became a Czech dissident who became leader
   of the Velvet revolution (which ousted the communists) and who finally
   became president of the republic.

   Vaclav Havel was the foremost
   dissident under the communist regime. He openly challenged the ruling
   government with such essays as "Power to the Powerless" and
   "The Soul of Main under Communism". (Actually I forgot the name
   of the latter essay. I think "The Soul of Man under Communism"
   is an essay written by Oscar Wilde. But Havel did address this theme
   in "Disturbing the Peace" and in essays he forwarded to the
   communist rulers.)

   One of the most exciting parts of the book is
   where Havel describes the dissident communitie's efforts to publish a
   Havel essay advocating that the Czech government adhere to the terms
   of the Charter 77 human rights accord to which they were a signatory.
   The story is spine tingling thriller complete with car chases and
   obscure drop points. It reads like a John le Carre novel except it is
   real.

   After you read "Disturbing to Peace" I also recommend
   "The Magic Lanten" by Timothy Garton Ash. This is a first hand
   account of the fall of the communism as the democratic revolution
   rolled across Czechoslovakia, East German, Hungary, and Romania.
   Garton Ash was privy to the inner circle of people who plotted and
   executed these bloodless coups. (Bloodless everywhere except, of
   course, in Romania.)
   
   
   

5 comments about The 23rd Psalm: A Holocaust Memoir.

1. The only reason I put this book down was to reflect. This story is so important - I will do as another reviewer suggests - "This book is to be read and passed down to our children to read.
   Very powerful.
   A suspensful read on a horrific truth.



2. The 23rd Psalm is a story that has been imprinted upon my soul, that will remain there as long as I live. I share in the sentiments of Pat's review; I was both compelled to stay in its pages by day and visited with its images at night in my sleep, somehow sharing in this man's plight.
   
   Thank you Mr. Salton for allowing others, for allowing me, into the most private and intimate and horrific memories of your life. I esteem you, and those like you, with the utmost honor. May the Lord cause His face to shine upon you my friend.



3. It must have taken the author a great deal of inner strength and pain to come to terms with these horrible happenings and be able to put them down on paper to share with all those that read this book. It was amazing that one so young would be quick enough to call on survival skills at the right moment. Though some, of course, was luck, this author displayed a natural instinct to survive throughout his nightmare.



4. The 23rd Psalm: A Holocaust Memoir is the chilling personal testimony and memoir of the daily life of George Lucius Salton, a Jewish man who survived the living hell of a Nazi concentration camp. An intense, gripping tale of hatred and power used as a brutal club to perpetrate atrocity, and the author's witness and narration of the unspeakable, The 23rd Psalm is an welcome and invaluable contribution to the growing library of Holocaust Studies. Providing powerful refutations of anti-semitic revisionist historians, these personal and eye-witness accounts are all the more significant in view of the holocaust generation now reaching an age where they are rapidly passing from among us.



5. This is an incredible accounting of the atrocities of WWII. I was unable to put the book down. It is extremely well written.