2 comments about Reagan's Victory: The Presidential Election of 1980 And the Rise of the Right (American Presidential Elections).

1. I thought this was a fair, nonbiased look at the 1980 Presidential election. The author covers all aspects of the campaign, from the summer of 1979 when it looked like Ted Kennedy was a shoe in to beat Jimmy Carter for the Democratic Nomination to the eventual Reagan landslide in November 1980.



2. This little book is a disappointing analysis of the presidential election of 1980 by a conservative scholar of American politics. Even though it contains somme interesting insights about the political dynamics of the late seventies and about presidential campaigning at the end of the party era in presidential politics, the book does not add much to the existing litterature on these topics and suffers from its unmistakable -however hypocritical-conservative bias.

5 comments about Inside the Economist's Mind: Conversations with Eminent Economists.

1. This book can make you fall in love with economics all over again. A collection of interviews with sixteen eminent economists, it presents the attractive face of the field--one rediscovers an economics concerned with improving the human condition by putting to good use tools borrowed from disciplines as diverse as mathematics and psychology.
   
   The book is a labor of love for William Barnett, the editor of the journal Macroeconomic Dynamics in which these interviews originally appeared between 1997 and 2005. Though the interviews were aimed at professional macroeconomists, much of the book is of broader interest. That's because these eminent economists, interviewed by their peers, are often able to describe their complicated work in simple terms, with modesty and humor, and enriched with anecdotes from their lives.
   
   Link to full review: http://www.imf.org/external/np/vc/2008/072508.htm



2. "Inside the economist's mind" is not a title that will attract readers without some background in economics, nor should it. This collection of interviews is by economists and for economists: there is a fair amount of economic jargon used that will make the book hard to read for laypeople.
   
   Having said that, most of the interviews are entertaining for economists. Getting an author's personal view on well-known ideas makes those ideas come alive, and it is interesting to read about the career paths and choices of famous academics. The selection of people is impressive, although in my personal view (as a micro-economist) there is an overrepresentation of macro-economists, and within this category an exaggerated interest for the rational expectations `revolution' and monetary policy.
   For those with other interests, treasures are more limited. There is a great and provocative interview with Robert Aumann that ranges from the existence of God to the foundations of game theory. The interview with János Kornai is great because having started his career on the other side of the iron curtain, he has a different perspective on the discipline. This is welcome, because it turns out that top-economists are a rather incestuous bunch, mostly bred within the top 10 or so departments in the US. This generates a lot of uninteresting institutional insider talk, the summit of which is reached in the useless last chapter in where James Tobin and Bob Shiller argue about the existence or not of a `Yale school' in economic thought, as if anyone cares.
   
   Some reviews talk about the `astonishing revelations' or the 'fabulous storytellers' in this book. Don't get your hopes up, it's still economics, unless they refer to the fact that Cass once said "[...]" to his head of department. The reviewer who calls this "A Beautiful Mind scaled up 16 times" must have read a different book (or did not read ABM).
   I would recommend getting this book from the library. Although interesting and occasionally entertaining, there is not too much here that you want to keep for reference. Still, 4 stars for the Aumann interview.



3. The editors should be commended on their choice of interviewees! A better, but still "mainstream", selection of major economists of the last half century could hardly be put together. While the selection is hopelessly skewed towards macroeconomics, it seems fitting, given the M.D. connection.
   
   Several interviews (e.g. Modigliani, Sargent) could be very interesting to graduate economics beginners, who'd like to put the contemporary tools and theories they learn in a more historic perspective. They also show how the rumors about the demise of "traditional Keynesian" concerns are largely exaggerated. (Modigliani is not shy about his views concerning unemployment in contemporary EU-15.)
   
   I don't find the book to be accessible to non-professionals or even to scholars in related fields such as PolSci. Some of the interviews are highly technical, which is not helped by the fact that the interviewers are often former students or junior collaborators of the interviewee. -- This is, I think, a good thing, since this level of discussion will be most useful for (future) professionals who look for insight and perspective rather than Principles hand-holding.
   
   On the down side, many interviews read like the interviewee is simply sampling his publishing record. "I wrote X and then I wrote Y..." The more politically-minded reader will be disappointed by the policy content (or lack thereof) in several interviews.



4. This is a collection of interviews commissioned for a journal, Macroeconomic Dynamics. The idea is to gauge the position of the profession by asking the people who invented large swathes of the theory their motivations for doings what they did, when they did it, and how they did it. Readers find eccentric and irascible characters behind some of the major innovations in economic science. I loved this book, and read it cover to cover in a day.
   
   The book purports (pg. xi) to "contain[] unique insights into the thinking of some of the world's most important economists, whose work contributed to the evolution of modern economic thought", and indeed it does.
   
   Scientific biography is a passion of mine, ever since reading Richard Feynman's writings on his life and work. Looking at the path integral method as an undergraduate, you can see how he came up with it (if, in fairness, I didn't really understand it), how startlingly original he was in doing his physics, because that's how he lived his life---he followed different paths as he felt he needed to, and arrived at different destinations that others because of his personality.
   
   So it's great that William Barnett, the editor of Macroeconomic Dynamics, and the co-editor of this book, decided to ask these men these questions.
   
   In future editions of this book and the further volumes to come, I'd love to see a focus on the characters behind different approaches to economics and their reasons for taking contrarian positions to the mainstream---Foley, Nell, Solow and Velupillai (my thesis advisor, in full disclosure), as well as more traditional mainstays of the profession. A focus on economists regarded primariy as great teachers would be great as well, not just the theoretical giants.
   
   The book is a very rare thing---an economic page-turner, like The Worldly Philosopher, Adam's Fallacy, and Freakonomics. The personalities behind the science's blleding edge make for compelling reading.



5. Thomas Keene has an Amazon Listmania List called "Book Reviews: Must Reads." It links to each of the books in Amazon that he recommends as a "must read," and there currently are eighteen of them on his list. But oddly the Amazon system does not provide reverse links from the Amazon page for each of the recommended books back to his review.
   
   He is the very influential Host of the radio program, "Bloomberg on the Economy." This book is on his list of "must reads." Here is his review:
   
   "Rules are meant to be broken. Samuelson & Barnett goes on the list without a complete read. Sixteen stunning interviews; the candor shocking. But then, this is Samuelson. Taylor interviews Friedman; Blanchard interviews Fischer. You get the must-read picture."
   
   Keene's rule that he says he is breaking is never to put a book on his "must read list" before he has finished reading the book. When he finishes reading this book, as I have, I am sure that he will not change his mind.
   
   I have only one criticism of the book. The stellar endorsement quotations that appear on the back cover are set in a rather small font on a black background. It would seem that the publisher could have found a way to make those quotations more inviting to read. But of course this is not a criticism of what is in the book.

5 comments about America's Queen: The Life of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis.

1. This was a great book - it was packed with information. Sometimes it had a little bit too much detail in certain sections and it got a little bit boring. Overall, it was really interesting and I was glad that it was so well written as opposed to a quick read that leaves you with more questions. Highly recommended.



2. Sarah Bradford has written a very complete story from Jackie's childhood to her death. There is lots of details about Jackie, as well as her husbands, JFK and Onassis. The book also focuses on JFK's affairs, and how much it hurt Jackie.
   
   Even before Jack died, Jackie was determined to be free from the Kennedy family. To separate from the Kennedy family, Jackie used wit and charm and focused on her children and her own interests, like art.
   
   One of the highlights of the book for me was how Jackie restored the White House. She asked for free donations, like a valuable portrait of Ben Franklin. She enlists the help of experts.Everyone seems willing to help her, because of her charisma and her position as first lady.
   
   I have no way to know how accurate this book is, but the author cites a lot of other books for research. Jackie was a very intelligent and determined lady. It is a shame that she died at only 64 years old.I enjoyed reading it.



3. Jackie Kennedy was the closest thing that America ever got to home-grown royalty. Her birth and upbringing in New York City, refinement, etiquette, and Olympian cool ... Jackie radiated a deep mystery that remains. She was iconic in her need for privacy and protectiveness of it. A woman of another era who remains enigmatic and unique in her persona ... an American icon who seems both American yet not typical of the United States. A sophisticate, debutant of the year, equestrienne, well-manner, posh Park Avenue social doyenne who intrigued the world until she died in 1994. Fluent in several language, a writer of poetry, political wife, patron of the arts, native New Yorker, and poised like any Queen in Europe. She wasn't perfect but she was Jackie. America may never see another quite like her.



4. My comments concern the narrator of the audio cd who felt that she had to change her voice inflection when she read quotes of various people. She talked in a soft wispery tone when quoting Jackie, however, she continued to use that same voice for any of the females quoted. She then attempted a deeper tone for the male voices. Due to all the voice shifting it was disruptive and the reading did not flow. Since it was a narrative and not a play it would have been more pleasing to the ear if the narrator did the entire reading in her natural voice.



5. It was fantastic to be able to grasp a better understanding of the stoic, graceful beauty that was Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. It was great to see the different facets of her personality from political darling to yacht hopping party girl. Her desire to control and veneer everything that happened in her life was inspiring. Couldn't put it down, was consistantly interesting throughout.

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

1. I'll admit that I did not know what to expect when I encountered this book by Kitty Kelley. I only knew her works by reputation, and her previous subject matter - the Royals, Jackie Onassis, Elizabeth Taylor and Frank Sinatra - struck me as lightweight and gossipy. But I found myself unexpectedly with a few hours to kill and few titles from which to choose. So, I picked up "The Family: The Real Story of the Bush Family," which tells the history of three generations of Bush politicians, Senator Prescott Bush and Bush 41 and Bush 43.
   
   First, let me say that the book is very readable. The only thing that might be a bit difficult is keeping track of the different names, as there are, for example, so many Georges and Prescotts. Kelley does what she can to assist by employing the nicknames used by Bush family itself. Some of them are actually endearing, such as "Poppy." Her prose carries the reader along easily.
   
   Second, let me say that the book was far more substantial than I expected. There was plenty, yes plenty, of politics in it. Kelley brings information together to show coherent patterns, exposing contradictions and lies.
   
   Third, I want to say that the book is, for the most part, fair. Kelley sometimes steps back to admire or acknowledge a deed or two. Prescott is admired for voting to censure Joe McCarthy (an act of political courage, as his constituents may have been pro-Joe). Bush 41 is admired for enlisting on his 18th birthday to fight in World War II (even though his parents were against his fighting in "Rockefeller's War"). Kelley also acknowledges that Bush 41's increase of taxes - and this hurt him badly in the re-election - put the economy in better shape for when Clinton entered office. Bush 43 is acknowledged to believe that he is a sincere Christian (although he rarely attends church). Kelley describes a charming incident, too, when Bush returns some money to a poor woman who contributed to his campaign.
   
   (A parenthetical note: how often do you hear the right-wing media positively acknowledge any deed of those whom they deem liberal? It's very, very rare, and very frustrating.)
   
   Despite these gleams of good, most of the book is negative with respect to the three men. Their talents can be described as mediocre at best, and pitiful at worst. They rarely have empathy for anyone but the Bushes. The lies that they tell - "Pernicious foolery" - expand from one generation to the next. They lie glibly about themselves; they lie viciously about their opponents. They pander to those who will vote for them or contribute to their campaigns. Many of the events have popped up in the media before; it's clear they are not invention. (I admit I was too young for the Prescott incidents.)
   
   A big question is: Why have the Bushes done what they have done? They seem to have mistaken a plaque on the wall for the satisfaction of genuine accomplishment. But they are desperate, almost slavering, to get that plaque on the wall. They lie and pander (to the NRA, for example) in order to get that plaque.
   
   And what's all this about poodles? The poodles are the media (see Kelley's Afterword) admitted to the White House - the poodles who have not done their work and informed the nation. The poodles who, hoping for another doggy biscuit or a chance to sit on the inner sofa, have let so many items go unchallenged. The poodles have hurt the Americans, who, thinking they were being informed appropriately, voted in the Bush-men
   
   Thanks Kelley - for not being a poodle!



2. For those of us who detest the Bushes, there is really no need to look for new reasons to hate. Having said that, I'm glad I read this book because it was enjoyable and cathartic while also serving as food for thought.
   
   It's really an anatomy of the mindset behind conservatism, as the Bushes come across not as instigators of the ugly sort of "conservatism" that now holds sway, but rather as a symptom. The current brand of conservatism that has plunged the USA into such a miserable state is based on the idea of life as a zero-sum game: an unending series of battles that necessarily require a winner and a loser. In this world view, there is no such thing as compromise for the greater good, so it is essential that one be on the winning side.
   
   Consistently throughout "The Family" we see the Bushes taking this stance as a means of becoming and remaining the ultimate victors. From the senior Bush's radical stand against the Civil Rights Act as a means of catapulting himself into the redneck center of Texas politics to his son's co-opting of the religious right to win backing among those he would be leaving economically disadvantaged, the naked cynicism of Bush maneuvering is masterful in that it is completely detached from any sort of a moral compass and instead driven by a keen understanding of people's fears of The Other.
   
   One amazing thing about "The Family" is that it comes across not only as an expose of the Bushes' ugliness but also as an convincing analysis of how they utilized the power of myths and images that easily resonate with Americans. We see exactly how truly despicable people are no more than a crystalization of all that is wrong with America.



3. There's not one nice thing said of any member of the Bush family here. Nope, not ONE nice thing. Across eighty-plus years and a couple dozen Bush figures, Kelley can't uncover a single deed by any of them that in her view merits her penning a single gracious compliment. No mention with any flattery (is there or did I miss something?) of former President Bush's service during World War Two, when the man might easily have stayed in college, no reference to how the current President's grandfather (eventually) opposed McCarthyism, no note conceded to the first President Bush's position among the top five Presidents of last century when it came to foreign policy, not EVEN a kind word for the charms of Millie, the White House Dog!
   
   But...I can't help but come back to one thing about this insomnia-curing exercise in gossip, and that is IF these things are true, then no matter how rude it might be to say all this, isn't it a valid exercise in journalism (stretching the word a bit) to print this?
   
   True tales or outright lies, I cannot like Kitty Kelley. She strikes me as one who glees in other people's troubles and mongers their problems and less flattering moments before all the world. She reminds me a lot of the sort Theodore Roosevelt was talking about a hundred years ago when he cited those types who do nothing on their own but are the first to sit back and criticise and mock those who do make an attempt at something.
   
   Bottom line is this. Most Bush foes will like this book, and most Bush fans will be outraged. Even I, who have little love for our current President, think this is trashy tabloid reporting at its most mercenary. Yet...I also suspect there's more truth here in Kelley's character-bashing than the sometimes ruthless Bush family would like to admit.



4. Imagine someone wrote a book about you, and after talking to everyone who hates you, compiled a list of every flaw and every mistake, intermingled with rumor and gossip presented as fact. This is the approach that Kelley takes, and while it does make for an entertaining book that's hard to put down, one feels a need to take a shower after reading it.
   
   A lot of Kelley's dirt is material of which even loyal Republicans were aware: We all accept that George W. is inarticulate, stubborn, and although he might have a high IQ, he's not an intellectual. Everyone knows about his history with alcohol and his checkered past as a businessman - points Kelley pounds at viciously and incessantly. More damning is her accusation that George W. had been cheating on his wife with a Midland prostitute who was threatened by CIA agents, and that he has a history of using cocaine. Is this true? Who knows? Kelley seems very thorough in her sourcing, but one gets the sense that she'd say it even if the source lacked credibility. Even when Bush does something positive, Kelley tweaks her wording to put the worst possible spin on the event, not realizing her book would have more credibility if she showed more evenhandedness.
   
   Prescott Bush, George Sr., and George W. each get roughly a third of the book. (Does anyone really care about Prescott?) As well, the women of the Bush family receive the Kelley treatment - Barbara, Laura, and the twins are all presented in a very negative light.
   
   I bought the 2005 Anchor paperback (although not from Amazon), and the binding fell apart despite gentle handling. I bought a replacement copy, and once again, the binding fell apart and chunks of pages fell into my lap.



5. I'm not American, so had never even heard of Prescott Bush, let alone many of the other characters in this book. And yeah it's pretty gossipy and Kitty Kelley is obviously no fan, but if (like me) you just want an easy to read overview of the Bush family that doesnt get too bogged down in American politics, I say this is for you. I read every word and came out knowing far more about right wing American politics than I knew before. Let me tell you, it wasnt the Bushes that shocked me, (scratch the surface of any family and you're bound to find pay dirt) it was the ratbag right wing fundamentalists that really gave me the creeps.
   Oooooh, scary.

5 comments about The Assassinations: Probe Magazine on JFK, MLK, RFK, and Malcolm X.

1. In the late 1960's, the Hollywood producer Robert Evans premiered the movie "The President's Analyst". It was, in many ways the touchstone movie of that period. Edgy, subversive, with a sense of creeping paranoia, it was nevertheless a funny and enjoyable couple of hours.
   
   Jumpcut to the subject of this review. Take out the funny and enjoyable part, and you get a very serious treatment of the seminal events of this very turbulent decade. The assassinations of John F Kennedy, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King and Robert F Kennedy are covered here in a series of expose's printed in Probe Magazine. The scope is ambitious. Collusive conspiracies are indicated in each of these events.
   
   The lion's share of the book is devoted to the murder of JFK. The single bullet theory has been assailed for forty five years as of this writing. However, the authors go further than taking on this concept. They find that there were actually two Oswald's. One they call Lee, and one Harvey. This gets to be a stretch, as they trace them both back to their high school years, as if they were both born, bred and fated to play a crucial part in one of history's ultimate dramas.
   
   Special animus is given to the establishment figures of the time, J. Edgar Hoover, Richard Helms, and the super-spook, James Angleton. Inconsistencies in the Warren Commission are detailed, and the findings of Jim Garrison, the New Orleans Prosecutor whose ideas Oliver Stone based many of the ideas from JFK on are applauded.
   
   I found fault in the final chapter of the writing of the JFK portion in which they write about the assassination of JFK's character after he died. The author seems to find conspiracies in the fact that people wrote about his infidelities and recklessness, as if it never happened, and JFK was really an innocent who just liked the company of women to make small talk with. I think this argument took credibility away from the rest of the writing.
   
   The most shocking subject was that regarding Robert F Kennedy. I had always believed that this was an open and shut case, with Sirhan Sirhan being a lone, deranged, Palestinian gunman. This book makes a convincing and eye-opening case that this was not the case. There were at least ten bullets fired, Bobby had four wounds, and Sirhan's gun only fired two shots. This is an appalling gap in what has been reported in mainstream news. There is the Manchurian Candidate angle presented here, which now looks astonishingly viable.
   
   The treatise on Martin Luther King takes on a new light as well, given the information that his own family asked for a new trial for James Earl Ray, the convicted (presumably innocent) killer of the former. There is ample evidence of a large scale cover-up after the murder. The author's lose some credibility when they attempt to speculate on why the conspiracies and cover-ups occured. They would do better to merely present the facts, which they sometimes do. However, free press reigns, and they are entitled to their opinions.
   
   However, there is shocking evidence of wide scale and well coordinated cover-ups and conspiracies here.
   
   Malcolm X story is presented more as an informational timeline of the harrassment of him and his family, his falling out with the Nation of Islam leadership, and his premonition of his own death. There were five gunmen who killed him, but only one convicted.
   
   At this writing (2008) there is a new re-examination of the the 1960's decade. Tom Brokaw's book "Boom" talks about the influence of the actions and political climate of the times, and today's leadership.
   
   For anyone who wants a thought provoking, albeit dark look at this decade, this book is required reading.



2. For those who are interested in the assassinations of the sixties this book is a must have. The essays are well-written and give the reader insight into not only the murders themselves, but how our government and their surrogates behaved prior to and after these murders. Reliance on the use of declassified documents helps to fill in the blanks or reveal how some stories circulated at the time of the murders were deliberate propaganda.
   
   John Armstrong's two-part essay documenting the existence of two people using the "Lee Harvey Oswald" identity a decade before JFK's assassination is at once so well-documented and so shocking that it's impossible not to see the fingerprints of certain federal agencies on JFK's murder. Armstrong has his own book on the subject, HARVEY AND LEE, self-published, and if you can hunt down a copy you will be amazed.
   
   Until then, grab this book. You will read it over and over.



3. I have read about thirteen books on the JFK assassination, and I found this book incredible. I learned all kinds of new material, and understood long sprawling arguments for the first time because of their concise summaries in some of these articles.
   
   The articles are especially good on the Corporate Media and in this sense are more relevent to today than almost any current event. The level of detail that is provided about the relationship between the media and intelligence agencies, really makes one think even more profoundly than Chomskys writing, about the implications of this centralized media power for today's news.
   
   I disagree with Vince Palamara. I think this book is much more valuable than Ultimate Sacrifice. This book says what the evidence in that tomb wants to say, but the authors are too cautious to write.
   
   I should mention that this book features two articles by John Armstrong. The hypothesis presented here, at first seems incredible. But it is very well argued and it sure does tie up loose ends and makes impossible timelines seem quite plausible. Armstrong makes his case for a Harvey and a Lee, quite convincingly.
   
   Deserves ten stars.



4. Good, but ULTIMATE SACRIFICE the best book ever
   While I thought this book was worthwhile in many respects, ULTIMATE SACRIFICE is simply the best book ever on the JFK assassination.Still, worth your time.
   
   Vince Palamara-JFK/ Secret Service expert (History Channel, author of two books, in over 30 other author's books, etc.)
   Pittsburgh, PA



5. Probe Magazine has always fascinated even lone nut theorists.
   The reason why is because it was an extremely investigative Magazine.
   James DiEugenio, Lisa Pease, etc have been known for their tireless investigative research into the true circumstances surrounding the death of America's 35th President.
   Now, you can read the wonderful articles that the Probe writers worked on concerning the conspiratorial Assassination of not only John F Kennedy, but also the suspicious assassinations of Robert F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr.
   Some have said that perhaps these assassinations werent merely isolated events, but that they were all connected in some way.
   This is not far fetched when one considers that Bobby Kennedy was shot within a week after he said "Only the powers of the Presidency will reveal the true circumstances of (JFK's) murder" or words to the effect.
   Also J Edgar Hoover, who clearly must atleast be suspected in the murder of Martin Luther King Jr, was THE man in charge of the "investigation" of JFK's death.
   Also Hoover hated Bobby Kennedy with a purple passion.
   It may be true that the same establishment that felt threatened enough by JFK that they decided to kill him, may have killed his Brother to remain in the shadows that they had hid in since '63.
   And Martin Luther King Jr, had, at times, made the same enemies, that the Kennedy brothers had.
   One cant help recognize the eerie similarities between Lee Harvey Oswald and James Earl Ray.
   Whether these assassinations were related or not, this is for certain: This book will really make you think about these assassinations, if you havent before.
   This book is so interesting, you will want to read it and reread it again and again.

5 comments about Lion in the White House: A Life of Theodore Roosevelt.

1. If I have to choose between Righteousness and this book, I choose Righteousness. Another distorted Liberal view of a great man. I try to read everything on this man, and this is by far the worst.



2. I recently finished "Lion in the White House", referring to President Theodore Roosevelt.
   While I have read many other books about this fascinating man, "Lion in the White House" is a compilation of other books and extensive research. It is an excellent and concise documentary of events and personalities of the time. A very easy read.



3. It would be pointless for me to criticize this book for being too short, because it was obviously intended to be a quick read that provided an overview of Teddy Roosevelt's life. And it did that. Yes I would have liked to hear more about Roosevelt's insatiable oldest daughter, among other topics, but for the most part, I got what I wanted out of the book.
   
   I had never read a TR book before, and I want to read McCullough's "Mornings on Horseback" at some point soon. I felt that to prepare for that book, which does not cover TR's entire life, I needed some background on the man. And "Lion in The White House" provided that.
   
   This is the kind of book that you can read in a week and get an understanding of what Roosevelt's goals were as a politician, and what drove him to be as progressive as he was. It did whet my appetite for a more detailed study of the man. But this time, I wasn't looking for a 700-page or multi-volume monstrosity, so I'm glad Donald's book was on the shelf. As long as your expectations are for a short overview of TR, you will be pleased with this book. If you're looking for great depth and detail, you should look elsewhere.



4. This is not my period so I cannot attest to any of the specific details. I was simply looking at background on Roosevelt as a writer of American History. Besides Winston Churchill I can think of no easier subject for a short biography and the book does capture many of Roosevelt's accomplishments. However, this book is stunningly badly written and edited. And this is not simply the gratuitous digs at today's Republicans as noted by other reviewers. I cannot figure out how it received so many endorsements from renowned History professors. I understand that a short book on such a rich subject may lead to gaps - but there are so many gaps, jumps, incomplete thoughts and non sequiturs that it makes reading the book a jarring experience. In addition, Donald has a quirky and idiosyncratic way with the language.
   Such criticisms clearly require supportive examples.
   In terms of key issues being broached but never explored, Donald describes Roosevelt's run for Governor as follows: "Besides the trial with Platt as an obstacle to his progress, there was Edith's reluctance to re-enter public life. She soon became enthusiastic and even went to the State convention, held in Saratoga, New York, on September 27." P107 The phrasing of the first sentence is decidedly odd. Then we find that Edith's reluctance miraculously disappears though previously it was an obstacle on a level with the opposition of apparently the most powerful political boss in the New York Republican Party.
   Other examples of Donald's odd phrasing include: "The new president did not throw caution to the winds, but boldly tacked in domestic and foreign afairs." P134
   Then there is repetition: On pages 131 and 155, where Dr. Donald uses exactly the same quotes about lynching.
   Then there is the sheer lack of clarity when Donald describes the complexities of New York politics and Roosevelt's need for support for his re-election as President:
   "He(Roosevelt) also watched as two rival Republicans, Boss Platt and Benjamin Barker Odell, a rising politician, fought for control of the Republican Party. Odell found that Platt had lied to him and would not be his ally.
   "During the struggle, Platt told Roosevelt that he would favor him continuing on as president, but Roosevelt did not put much stock in this because he thought Platt, who was not well, would be more likely to follow him than would Roosevelt." Page 141
   Clearly there is something wrong here. An editor would have helped clear it up!!
   Another disappointment was cursory examination of how and why Roosevelt ran again for President. But perhaps by then I was too jarred to follow Dr. Donald's line of reasoning.
   Fortunately for Dr. Donald, her book is saved by the brilliance of Roosevelt.



5. When one writes a book or an article, one must first decide the audience for that work. The serious student of Theodore Roosevelt will be disappointed with this book as it contains nothing new. It is merely a precis of TR's life, from beginning to end. While reading this book the question "Why?" entered my mind many times. Why was it written? Why were certain parts highlighted and others ignored?
   
   For example, when Roosevelt returned from Cuba after the Spanish-American War, he flirted with the idea of running for governor of New York. His wife did not relish the idea. She eventually changed her mind, but the reader is not told why: "Besides his trial with [Thomas C.]Platt as an obstacle to his progress [in gaining the nomination], there was Edith's reluctance to reenter public life. She soon became enthusiastic and even went to the state convention..." (107). Were bargains made with Edith? Why did she change her mind? If that fact is important enough to mention, a better explanation as to her turnaround should have been forthcoming. There was also a lack of credit for some quotes in the book. Mark Hanna, the Ohio senator who was against TR becoming vice-president, was mentioned in several places. Yet, his most famous quote, "Now that damned cowboy is in the White House!" (after McKinley's assassination) is merely credited to "...an anti-Roosevelt Republican" (130).
   
   In a book filled with excerpts from Roosevelt letters and speeches, some of his best speeches and quotes are left out. His 1915 speech to the NYC Knights of Columbus where he dismisses "hyphenated Americans," is not mentioned. For a book published in 2007, one could argue for inclusion of the entire text of that speech. Also, while discussing the assassination attempt on TR during the 1912 presidential campaign, his famous line, "It takes more than that to kill a Bull Moose," is omitted.
   
   Clearly this is an abbreviated history of a long, event-filled life. This work does not do that life justice. Considering the lifetime of work by the author, one has to wonder if she penned the book only to add to the list of her accomplishments. Moreover, the lack of a serious bibliography and the absence of notes calls into question the academic validity of this work. It would have been better had it not been written in the first place.
   
   It was awarded three stars because it would be fitting as an introduction to the twenty-sixth president. Its prose flows well and is easy to read. Since the curious reader will want to find out more about Roosevelt, it would be recommended to a middle school student as a way to become familiar with one of America's great icons. Those who are beyond that stage should look to other sources for an in-depth education about Theodore Roosevelt.

5 comments about Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy Onassis: A Life.

1. The life of Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy Onassis can be accurately told as one of wealth, power, struggle, and heartache. Born into a life of status, Jackie, in essence, never had the trouble of wandering far from it; she was well-educated, and intelligent; and for the most part knew both her role and place in society. Spoto paints the story of a strong woman, who despite her travails is able to keep on. True, this account does lean toward a more sympathetic view of Jackie; her faults are not as obvious. However unbalanced, this biography is still one of note for its fairly accurate portrayals and the insights of her life through her eyes. Her marriage to an American President and later the richest man in the world during her time, will forever establish and endear her as an American icon. Her story, indeed, is very remarkable.
   Reading this book made me realize that there was something beyond her image. Jackie was an intensely private person; so by catching a glimpse of her life and the way she might have thought, clarified somewhat her public persona. As for her legion of adoring fans, history is made up of more than one person. No matter, this books makes a highly interesting summer read.



2. She was a key public personality of the 1960's until she died in 1994. Worldly, cosmopolitan, intelligent, stylish, polished, and a woman with her own dark shadows ... Jackie Kennedy lead a life that was a living dream. From the White House to Park Avenue, Jackie left a trail of mystery and fascination. Her human side hidden from the public and a mind we came to know in her later years. It was sad to see her go at just 64 but she lived a grand life.



3. I had to read a biography for school, and I was very interested in Jackie Kennedy Onassis. The main reason I selected this book was that it gave a biography over her entire life, rather than other books that only gave a small portion in her life. But on the other hand it was extremely long, and had a lot of extra info. that wasn't needed.



4. It always makes me smile when I see reviews that praise Jackie as the ultimate mother. Look, as accounts from people who knew her will tell you she was an average mother; her kids went to boarding schools, and she had a great deal of help in the way of nannies and maids to assist her in being a "perfect" mother. jackie was an ordinary person; prone to selfisness, and keep in mind that she had a great oppurtunity to become a humanitarian (like A. Hepburn, and Diana). Did she though? No. I am fascinated by Jackie because of the private life she led and her extraordinary style and beauty. This book painted a laughably perfect image of her-she had no faults, and of course as we all know everyone has faults. For a more objective look at her life I would suggest "A woman named Jackie"



5. I had always wanted to find out more about the famous 'Mrs. Kennedy'. I picked this one and found it hard to put it down. From her chilhood to the time she died, Spoto writes in a delightful fashion that is easy to read and understand. After reading this touching and heartwarming portrayal of America's Royal, she became one of my favorite people. It includes quotes from her close friends and indulges you in her charity projects and her relationship with Caroline and John Jr. It tells of her deep love for JFK and the loyalty she had to her family. The only thing I disliked about the book was the beginning, which was like reading the beginning of the Bible. It told all about her ancestors history and was quite boring in my opinion. Aside from that though, this is a great book which helped spawn my interest in Jackie.

5 comments about The Prince of Providence: The Rise and Fall of Buddy Cianci, America's Most Notorious Mayor.

1. RI is such a secular little world where everyone DOES know everyone else. Buddy played those connections to the hilt, rebuilding a city and lining his own pockets at the same time. This is a great study of a guy who, had he not been so affable, would have been regarded as the nastiest of crooks. But instead while he wallows in the Federal Pen, his legions of fans and supporters remain steadfast. Stanton does a superb job of capturing the uniqueness of Rhode Island; the Italianness, the corruption, the general air of "fuhgheddaboudit, they're all crooks". Don't rule out Buddy Part III, this is but the first installment of a very interesting man.



2. I know very little about New England or Rhode Island. I'm not terribly interested in politics. I came to this book in a roundabout way. I had never been aware of Buddy Cianci until I happened to see a musical at the New York International Fringe Theatre Festival in 2003 titled BUDDY CIANCI. While the musical wasn't very good, I thought the story was fascinating and that in Buddy Cianci the authors certainly had a character who was big enough to sing. Here was a guy who was a scary crook that everyone loved. Here was a mayor whose popularity was never higher than just after he was indicted a second time. He had been indicted previously, pleaded guilty to assault (he bound and tortured a man he claimed was his ex-wife's lover) and had to step down as mayor, only to run again and be re-elected! So of course I pounced when I saw this book in the bookstore. I was not disappointed. Mike Stanton's THE PRINCE OF PROVIDENCE is jaw-dropping reading as it traces Cianci's rise to power and his outrageous machinations to keep his power. Stanton's book is very detailed and objective. This is not a hatchet job. He gives equal time to all sides. In one chapter I would be rooting for Buddy and in the following chapter rooting for his enemies. This is that kind of book. Buddy Cianci is that kind of guy. The book has been sold to the movies and should make a terrific film. (But what actor could possibly do justice to the title character?) There are times when the book seems on the verge of becoming a Yankee MIDNIGHT IN THE GARDEN OF GOOD AND EVIL (which I consider a compliment). THE PRINCE OF PROVIDENCE is consistently entertaining and has a lot to say about America and the times we live in. Four stars.



3. A fascinating view of a Mayor who engaged in boosterism to sell his city, and himself. Very helpful to those interested in studying styles of government and a great read.
   
   Jim Fiorentini Mayor, Haverhill, MA



4. 
   This book is a fascinating look at politics, corruption and the enigma of Buddy Cianci. Thoughtful and balanced, it shows both sides of a bright, funny, and charismatic mayor whose impact reaches beyond his city. It's all about good and evil in the same person. Charm, power, and political realities. A great read.



5. Well, perhaps not everyone does. But as this book outlines in great detail, Buddy was quite a character. He was the huge push (or battering ram?) behind the proverbial renaissance of Providence. PVD has a long way to go, but some would argue that it is definitely better off after Buddy's term in office. Besides, how many cities have had a convicted felon with his own marinara sauce in City Hall? Stanton has written a meticulously researched and engaging book about one of the most interesting mayors to come along in quite a while. Whether you're from Providence or just passing through (ahem college kids), pick this one up and learn about the man behind the myth.

1 comments about Obama: The Essential Guide to the Democratic Nominee.

1. This book is on sale in supermarkets, and I spent time with both this book and its counterpart for John McCain.
   
   I recommend both books as coffee table books, lots of great photos and general information about the individuals, but this book is NOT a guide.
   
   There are no statistics, no tables, no comparisons, no meaningful GUIDE to who the candidate is and what they really stand for based on their actual behavior, votes, known acquaintances, etcetera.
   
   What would be extraordinarlily valuable, if the publishers want to do a fast make-over, is a SINGLE book that compares all four candidates On the Issues and on their Values and what it all means for the federal government's future, the budget's future, and the country's future.
   
   For an idea of what I am talking about, look online for "On the Isuses,"
   and see especially the way they plot on a map relative differences.
   
   See also the book below:
   
   The Political Junkie Handbook (The Definitive Reference Book on Politics)

5 comments about The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin: Second Edition (Yale Nota Bene).

1. The autobiography of Franklin was a worthwhile book to read. I suggest ignoring the footnotes as you read his autobiography since it distracts you from reading Franklin's work. It was a good book that details how industriousness results in a wonderful, useful public life at an older age. Franklin is the type of public servant that we are lacking today.



2. Like so many people I only know Benjamin Franklin from school and history books where he comes across as someone stiff and formal. But here in the first half of this book we find Ben Franklin the boy. We hear him complain of his parents, his restrictions, quarrels with his brothers, and of course things that all boys do. He steals from a construction site to build a fishing pier -- and gets caught. We see him finally breaking away and moving to Philadelphia where he arrives with very little money and must subsist on bread. He describes his youth and his gradual maturity as he builds his life and fortune. Interestingly this book leaves some doubt as to whether he was actually married to Deborah Read or had an "arrangement". I particularly enjoyed his description of General Braddock and his defeat by the Indians. Although this was only briefly touched on this and other similar references to the English gives you insight into why the colonists rebelled. Clearly the English completely misjudged the American Character as most Europeans do even today.
   
   Unfortunately the second half of this book was written after the war and when Franklin was an old man and clearly not terribly interested in finishing this book. It reads as an after thought and really doesn't provide any insight into his role or the extraordinary people and events of which he was a part. But it does show the close relationship he had with his son so when the estrangement came it must have hurt him deeply although this is a subject not mentioned at all in the book.
   
   However, the editors have kindly provided a marvelous timeline in the appendix, which really gives you a summary of the Revolutionary War as it places various key events into perspective. You see the impact that John Paul Jones's victory over the Serapis had on events in Paris. It shows how Franklin's diplomatic skills had a huge effect on the ultimate outcome of the war.
   
   Franklin was an extraordinary man who lived an extraordinary life. He writes about himself rather modestly and really doesn't touch on his activities during the war in any detail and for this reason I only gave this book four stars. Still this is an interesting book about a truly fascinating man.



3. Well, it has been nearly 30 years since I first read Benjamin Franklin's autobiography and one can still gain some insights after a good second reading. Both the American Icon's wisdom and insights are time honored and worth repeating no matter what your age.
   
   This edition has copious footnotes on every page unlike traditionally at the end of the book. The authors may have felt that the reader would be interested in the quick reference aspect versus paging to the back. Though this can be a little strange at first, I get their point and maybe it was better this way.
   
   One aspect that I would have liked; however, would have been if they had added some of his other selected writings like "The Way to Wealth" and others. Irrespective, this is a good edition and recommended as one of the more authoritative editions.



4. The autobiography of Ben Franklin is a worthwhile read simply because of who Ben Franklin is. It is beneficial to understand the character of this great man by judging him through his own words. There is no doubt that Franklin was an ingenius man and his witty rhetoric further confirms his intelligence. It also confirms his egotistical nature I hate to say.... But I suppose he had every right given his success...
   Anyhow, I thought the first portion of the book (written before the revolution) was much more interesting that the latter half. Unfortunately the autobiography was never really finished by Franklin. He ends off abruptly during the French and Indian War period and there is nary an remark concerning American Independence, which would have been interesting to read about from his point of view.
   Still, overall, it's worth the read.



5. The purpose of the book is difficult to pin down, primarily because Franklin never completed and cohesively tied his biography together. The purpose, it seems, is then left to the effects that it has had upon history. Although difficult to follow and often a confusing narrative, Franklin composes a portrait of the prototypical American success story, perhaps even the first. His emphasis on personal virtue and industry is a sermon not only to his son, but also to Americans throughout time, on the formula for success. His descriptions of life in the colonies and the nature of self-teaching seem to set the standard for history's view of pre-revolutionary America.
   
   The ethics of clean living and a hearty work ethic that Franklin sought to impart upon his son are still alive as ideals of the "American dream." Although it can be argued how much of a dream this really is, the value given to hard work and personal responsibility are very much a part of the American rhetoric that is indoctrinated through political and nationalistic institutions. It seems undeniable that Franklin hoped to have a lasting effect on future generations, as he certainly did not succeed in living the virtue of humility.
   
   While vanity certainly must play a part in the drive for any public figure to pen to paper and detail their life, part and parcel with that is the desire to be a good role model to a wide audience. Franklin seems to have prided himself on being a good role model throughout his life, from his time in England until returning to Philadelphia, assisting others in setting up businesses and becoming self-sufficient.
   
   We can only speculate what Franklin's reasoning must have been. Indeed, it may be that assuming history will have well recorded the time period, a personal account was unnecessary. It may be that Franklin simply never finished his Autobiography and certainly intended to return to the subject. Whatever the reasons may be, this is certainly the most jarring and notable deficiency from an otherwise detailed record of the life of one of our most important statesmen.