2 comments about Should Barack Obama Be President? DREAMS FROM MY FATHER, AUDACITY OF HOPE, ... Obama in '08?.

1. Quote from this book.
   
   'I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.'
   
   Muslim doctrine states "...kill the infidel..." that means everyone who is not Muslim. Wake up America before it is too late!!



2. The book was a bit convoluted at times, but I did get some new information. I like the online updates option.

5 comments about Blood of the Liberals.

1. I admire the liberalism of Franklin Roosevelt and company as much as the next person. I admire politicians who speak up for the common man. But am I the only one who notices how complacent and dishonest George Packer really is on the subject of race?
   
   While Packer seems sincere in his goodwill towards blacks, the southern history in this book is seriously distorted. In what appears to be a misguided effort to make liberalism more palatable to "ordinary" white Americans, George Packer tries to whitewash the racism of his own grandfather, a mediocre congressman from the depths of the Jim Crow era.
   
   Packer claims that his grandfather Huddleston spoke for the "common man." But he fails to examine the real ugliness of his grandfather's position. The vicious, lynching white men of Alabama sent him to Congress back in 1908. They allowed him to make his little chirping noises about "common men" and "Jeffersonian democracy." But all the old man was doing was providing long-winded camouflage for pure evil, for a reign of terror against black people. We don't need to revive the weak-willed cowardice of Packer's grandfather. We need to remember what his lying words really stood for, and who paid the real price for his success.
   
   While we're reviving dead American heroes, why can't we bring back all the black men who got lynched while Grandpa Huddleston was in Congress? Come to think about it, what about all the black American soldiers who were killed in combat in the Spanish American War? Georgie Packer doesn't care about their sacrifice. Like most modern liberals, he regards all military personnel with contempt. In fact, Packer tells us with evident pride that his sniveling Grandpa couldn't even make the grade in combat -- he played sick, and sat out the Cuban war, stateside. (At least Hitler won the Iron Cross.)
   
   George Packer, the modern liberal, doesn't bother to draw the comparison between his grandfather's shirking and the courage of black men. But there is a striking contrast between Grandpa Gutless Liar and the black heroes who served honorably under Pershing. That's General "Black Jack" Pershing, by the way. As in, he commanded black troops in Cuba. But you won't learn about that from lying little Georgie, who loves his Alabama grandpa but has no use for black men with guns.
   
   While Packer condemns the social policies of the conservatives, and blames them for black poverty and crime, it is nevertheless regrettable that the only blacks in this book are either helpless "victims" or rude, ill mannered nationalists. Packer claims to have hated the Sixties, and condemns black campus radicals who were "violent." Apparently any black who raises his voice to George Packer is a public menace. He doesn't mention the thousands of black men who served in Vietnam. And he never acknowledges the lynchings his Grandpa allowed to happen with his blessing.
   
   While he absolutely refuses to discuss the countless daily hate crimes his grandfather countenanced as a legislator, Packer makes a big thing out of Grandpa Huddleston "opposing" the war against Kaiser Bill. I can see why a lynching autocrat like Huddleston would identify with Prussian brutality and the rule of blood and iron! But I don't understand why George Packer has more respect for his yellow, gutless grandpa (who ended up voting for the war, by the way) then for the black heroes of the 369th Infantry, a.k.a. "Harlem Hellfighters." They weren't sullen, spoiled campus radicals, George. They were men. Soldiers. And I don't propose for our race to be cheated of its place of honor in this country because of fools like you -- or Grandpa Lynching Leghorn Huddleston.
   
   So many real American heroes are trivialized or ignored in this hateful, stupid book. What about me, George Packer? I graduated from Columbia in 1985, and I joined the Marines -- as an enlisted man -- in 1986. You're my age. But you say you would never have joined the military because it was "beneath" you. Don't you see that your hypocrisy and elitism is precisely what's poisoning the liberal movement?



2. Blood of the Liberals is a near-perfect blend of the personal and the political. Packer's grandfather was George Huddleston, a Congressman from Birmingham, Alabama who represents for Packer a lot of the contradictions in modern liberalism: desegregation versus states' rights, support for the common man against bigness (whether corporate, governmental, or otherwise), and at the same time a belief that government is sometimes necessary.
   
   Packer's father, by contrast, was a pointy-headed academic. He grew up as a shy Jewish boy and moved into the ivory-tower life after some time spent in World War II; Packer paints the war years as rather uneventful for the senior Packer -- indeed little more than a pause from his books. I felt a lot of empathy with the dad; I was the same way when I was a kid, and I'm sure that if I went off to fight a war I'd be mailing home to ask for books and magazines just as much as Packer Sr. was.
   
   I also drew a lot from Packer's portrait of his father, because in that portrait Packer seems to have discovered why liberals keep losing elections. Packer Sr. was an Adlai Stevenson man -- Stevenson, the charismatic, brilliant loser. In a better world, Stevenson would have been our president, but in this world he lost the race twice. The term egghead became popular because one of the Alsops tagged Stevenson with it.
   
   And ever since Stevenson, says Packer, liberalism has been dominated by rather bloodless intellectuals who can't argue persuasively against the bread-and-butter issues that let Republicans win. The common thread among these intellectuals, says Packer, is a love of abstract debate, and the belief that human problems can be solved by the judicious application of reason -- that we can all get along and solve our issues without yelling or fighting. That's fine and good, and as far as it goes it's no more modern than Jefferson. The Jeffersonian strain is one of the key strands that Packer identifies in liberal thought.
   
   Where it starts losing elections, he says, is when the intellectuals start to take it over. Discussions shift from individual people -- this man lost his land, this man's family is starving because of government policies -- to larger universal themes like freedom, equality, justice, and the rule of law.
   
   This adherence to principles loses us elections. It lost Stevenson the election against Eisenhower when he stood up for fairness and impartiality in the anti-Communist witchhunts; he himself was a strong anti-Communist, but he framed his beliefs in terms that Nixon could tear apart.
   
   This doesn't play with the public. The public is more concerned with outcomes than with processes. If the public doesn't feel safe, it will not vote for abstract principles that seem to help their enemies. We could argue for civil liberties all we want, but Republicans will always come back with the argument that they're helping protect us from terrorists. When it comes to a battle between safety and our Constitutional freedoms, safety will always win.
   
   This, at least, is the message that Packer seems to be sending so far. His diagnosis does seem spot on. And his delivery is just right: he cuts back and forth between an impersonal political tale -- how liberals have ended up in the mess we're in -- and a personal story about discovering his father's and grandfather's role in it all. It is at once autobiography and political cautionary tale. I'm amazed that he could pull it off.



3. How did such a basic, rational notion as liberalism turn into the favorite epithet of talk-show hosts? What happened to social justice? Where is the freewheeling spirit of the Sixties? These, and other questions, have haunted me for years. Not being well versed in American history, the seemingly abrupt annhiliation of everything "liberal" has caused me great puzzlement and distress.

   Packer, in a beautiful amalgam of memoir and history, has written a book that has almost singlehandedly restored my relationship with the past and pointed my way to the future. While as a historical account it is spotty, and as a memoir it is sometimes dry, the heartfelt combination of these two styles has a vitality and immediacy I've never seen anywhere else.

   His conclusions, while expansive, are also poignant, with a touch of desperation. In his consideration of the prospects of liberalism in this country, I am reminded of the Monty Python sketch about the parrot - "It's just resting!" - while at the same time I'm stirred by its undercurrent of optimism. His last few words ring in my ears: "We will have a more just society as soon as we want one."

   If you sense that, like myself, you are a lost liberal that is trying to find your way in the world, this book is for you.

   If you are a Rush Limbaugh dittohead who needs a clue as to what "liberal" really means, this book is for you as well.




4. Words can simply not do justice to the rapturous "Eureka! I have found it" feeling I experienced when I found, read and re-read this timely, vivid and insanely insightful book. (Perhaps I should mention that I have been searching in vain for nearly two years to find material on George Huddleston Sr. written in the literary style of eminent historians Richard Hofstadter and Christopher Lasch which also serves as both a caustic critique and a dynamic defense of the very concept of American liberalism). Packer is a great writer! He surveys the modern history of the American reform movement from 1869 to 2000 in a penetrative yet highly readable style and the word pictures he creates both engage and enlighten the reader immediately and throughout. His highly personal depictions of his family lineage - including triumphs and more than a few tragedies - make the story so poignant and touching that your heart will simply melt even if you don't agree with all of his premises or conclusions. And his understanding of the broad sweep of history is astounding - anyone who reads this book will come away with a much more enlightened view of 20th century American reform efforts than they would ever get from a more traditional historical author. There are only a few flaws (which I will not detail here), but those should be arrived at only after thoroughly studying this absolutely amazing book. Blood of the Liberals is simply one of the very best books I have ever read and I recommend it highly!



5. I really enjoyed Packer's book. I'm roughly a contemporary of his, and experienced the same wrenching events that occurred in modern liberalism during the late 1960s and early 1970s.I'd just finished reading Roth's "American Pastoral", and it was great to follow it up by reading Packer's book.

   Like Packer, my father was an academic at an elite university, and as a traditional liberal who voted for Adlai, he was shocked by what he saw during the late 1960s. On a personal level, I liked reading a book by a writer who likes the same authors I like - Saul Bellow (Humboldt's Gift), Christopher Lasch, Irving Howe et al. There is a passage in which Packer perfectly summarizes the thesis of Lasch's "Revolt of the Elites" - gated communities like the ones that dot my hometown in Southern California.

   The only area where I would fault Packer's book is that he does not criticize the dogmatic, politically correct tone that liberalism took on during the late 1980s and early 1990s and which still haunts liberalism. What alarmed Packer's father was exactly that, and I'm afraid Packer only devotes one paragraph to it. Left liberalism has, I'm afraid, taken on a neo-Stalinist quality on some college campuses, viz, stealing copies of conservative campus newspapers which take politically incorrect stands on such issues as affirmative action. Liberals should decry that just as much as the depredations of the Right. David Horowitz shouldn't be the only one who claims the moral high ground on that issue. I don't know if Packer's father would be a neoconservative today, but he might have been, if he'd lived.

   Aside from all that, I commend Packer's book. It is a decent, humane and intelligent work that says that there's still a place at the political table for liberalism, even for disheartened liberals like me!

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 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 Mayada, Daughter of Iraq: One Woman's Survival Under Saddam Hussein.

1. 
   Mayada Al Askari was born in Iraq, in 1955, to a prominent Iraqi family, and is the granddaughter of Jido Sati, an important Iraqi politician and statesman in the first half of the 20th century, and of former Iraqi Prime Minister Jafar al-Askari.
   This biography tells of her experiences growing up in the hellish cage of Baathist Iraq under Saddam Hussein's rule of fear.
   Mayada was born, grew up, was married in, and gave birth to two children in Iraq.
   She detested the Hitler of the Euphrates Saddam Hussein, and her one dream in life was to live to see the end of his rule.
   The author Jean Sassoon visited a children's ward in a Baghdad hospital with Mayada, and knew that Saddam, who brought on the wares and sanctions, was the reason for these children's suffering. Saddam was so eager to lay the blame for infant deaths on the sanctions that he was known to hold back medicine from the hospitals- he might, for example, allow only one cancer drug to be issued for leukemia patients, who clearly required tow or three different drugs to battle certain cancers.
   Saddam was also known to have placed empty baby coffins on the street to inflame world opinion against the United States (The international left lapping up Saddam's propaganda with enthusiasm , while never one uttering a word against his genocidal reign of terror).
   Mayada ran a printing shop and was arrested on false charges that opposition material had been printed with her facilities.
   She was imprisoned in Baladiyat, the headquarters of Saddam's secret police which also served as a prison cell.
   Here she was tortured and witnessed deaths and maiming of the women in her cell by the most horrific tortures.
   Many of these were imprisoned for no certified reason at all, and another was imprisoned, for example, for organizing a litter cleaning campaign, as this was then seen as an implicit criticism of the Saddam regime's administration.
   Every woman was taken at least once a day for a torture session.
   These women were beaten, whipped, burned, mutilated, dismembered, and gassed and electrocuted.
   One method used was to insert a pipe into the victim and burn their insides with gas.
   Were where the hypocritical 'anti-war' activists who hysterically pour venom against President George W Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair for liberating Iraq, when Saddam was torturing his own people and murdering hundreds of thousands of others.
   When American forces humiliated Iraqi Baathists, involved in terror, while doing nothing like what Saddam's cohorts did to thousands, the international left and media broke again into hysteria, but where were they when Saddam was involved in perpetration of these horrors.
   In true Orwellian style they compared President Bush and Blair to Hitler when it was so clear that Saddam was the Hitler of the equation, and millions of Iraqis were jubilant at Saddam's downfall. The book, through detailing Mayada's conversation with some of her fellow prisoners, relates the cruelty of the Saddam Hussein family, including Saddam's torture and starvation of a pet dog, tied up next to a pool of water while being killed with thirst, all the while being given electric shocks by Saddam's sadistic son, Uday.
   Everyone who has ever had an interest or comment in the Iraq War or who says that they do not know why President Bush removed Saddam would do well to educate themselves on something of Saddam's excesses.
   This book gives us an insight but it is only the tip of the iceberg of the horrors perpetrated by the Saddam regime.



2. Mayada is an essential book for any historian of what the United States is actually doing in Iraq. The history is fascinating, and Mayada bears witness to horrible suffering in one of the most perverted dictatorships since that of Idi Amin.
   
   That being said, there are a few criticisms. The author attempts to mix Mayada's account of her time in an Iraqi prison with flashbacks as an attempt to put the Iraqi situation into the appropriate context. This could easily be done -- as has Daniel Jonah Goldhagen in Hitler's Willing Executioners. I don't think that the author is successful so sometimes the reader is left with the feeling that some organization was necessary.
   
   That doesn't change the fact that every American should read this book.



3. I am an Iraqi woman and I read this book. It is complete non-sense. She clearly was one of the people who got the greatest advantage of Saddam Hussein being in power. Don't you read that in between the lines? She met Saddam and Chemical Ali (she wrote an article in an Iraqi magazine about how handsome Ali was, and how great his personality was). You are no "oppressed woman" if you are allowed in the presence of these criminals and murderers. She knew every single powerful man then! In Iraq, you couldn't get that close if you were not the first one who cheered and clapped for that brutal system. Ask me about Iraqis who really suffered, not this woman! She probably wants to get another high rank in the new government and that is why she is listing her "suffering" story. This woman didn't suffer, she was one of the most pampered women during Saddam Hussein's time and she will still be pampered no matter how the Iraqi government changes. If you really want to read about the suffering of Iraqi women, read the book named "Baghdad Burning". It is a stunning book that is wonderfully written and truly depicts how everybody still suffers in Iraq.



4. wow...what a book. could not put it down. if you want to know what living under the regime of saddam was like this says it all!! these women were so courageous. the imprisonment of women, children and men and what they suffered is in grafic details here. this is a story that breaks your heart. should be must reading for all. shocking shocking read. my thoughts are still with these women and what has become of them. this is the fourth book by this author i have read; each book has been a page turner. this one the most disturbing. but they are all written as if you are right there at the moment and watching it with your own eyes, it is so discriptive. that this is a real story is horrifing!!!



5. When it comes to autobiographical or biographical books, like this one, and the events recounted are mainly dramatic and very sad, the impulse is to rate it with 5 stars. However, I find that this particular book, or rather, its narrative, seems to be lacking that something or other which would put the whole thing into a more tangible perspective. Of course one cannot but sympathise with Mayada and all the "shadow women" and what they went through as described (imprisonment and torture in Iraq).
   
   However this time, and unlike some previous work I read by the same author, I felt that the book lacks in substance a bit, some points have not been explained clearly and, in my opinion, the frequent descriptions of Mayada's fortunate background blur some more fundamental issues.

5 comments about Condi: The Life of a Steel Magnolia.

1. This book is both enjoyable to read and very informative.
   It is interesting to read how Condi's childhood, college, and time at Stanford all contributed to shaping her for her current career at the White House.



2. Whether Republican or Democrat, (or other), white or black (or other), male or female, I think every reader will find this a most interesting book about a very unique person. There were a few surprises in the book, which I had never heard from any other source. The author did a great job of tracing Condoleeza's rise from her segregated upbringing in the deep south of the 60's to her becoming Secretary of State. Great book!



3. As soon as I finished this informative biography, I instructed my both of my daughters to read it. Dr Rice is exactly the kind of role model I want for them.
   
   This is an interesting bio not only for the light it sheds on the winning of the cold war, but more so in the instruction to the pathway to success and greatness. Before I read this bio I was a fan of Dr. Rice but now she is my hero.



4. Hooray for Mary Beth Brown. It is wonderful to read a book about a person who has achieved so much without a powerful family dynasty or government entitlements behind them. The subtitle of the book is perfect. After getting to know Condi through these pages she epitomizes a steel magnolia. I was wanting to know the person Condi and I have now met her. It is amazing that a young girl from segregated Alabama became our Secretary of State, but after reading about her ancestry and the value of education in her family it is the perfect place for her to be. I appreciate the humility of Condi. She never strove for a position of power at either Stanford or in our government, yet she was chosen for these positions through her own merit. If you are looking for a rehashing of all her political achievements during her service to our country you are reading the wrong book. This is a wonderful telling of who she is as a person.



5. I was recently given the opportunity to read and review the book Condi: The Life of a Steel Magnolia by Mary Beth Brown. There are a number of things that will factor into whether you end up liking this book or not. All things considered, I ended up thinking this was around an "average" book...
   
   Contents:
   Transforming America; Entering a New World; A Strong Family Heritage; Childhood Matters; Becoming a Steel Magnolia; Not Your Average Teenager; Education Is the Way to Success; Professor Rice; Dealing with the Soviet Union; Tackling a Monstrous Deficit; Condi the Campaigner; Advising a President; The Most Powerful Woman in the World; Epilogue; Bibliography; Notes; Index; Acknowledgments; About the Author
   
   On the positive side... This book goes into a fair amount of detail about how she grew up in the segregated South, an only child who was taught that nothing should stand in her way to achieve whatever she could dream. Her ancestors placed great importance on education, and that emphasis carried down to her. As a result, she was way ahead of the curve when it came to academic achievement, regardless of color and gender. She was also well-versed in the arts, and is an accomplished pianist who still plays regularly for herself and the occasional public performance. Her Christian faith is also integral to her attitude and philosophy in life, and that's something that can't be sectioned off and dealt with as a compartment. Based on the way the author presents the material, you realize that Rice places critical importance on her relationship with God. When you're done with the book, you know that she has accomplished more in her life than any number of people combined. She truly is an example of overcoming obstacles and hurdles in life to become a success.
   
   On the negative side... You'd think that Rice has never made a mistake in her life based on the author's often gushing portrayal of her. Little if any time is spent analyzing her decisions made as "the most powerful woman in the world" in terms of foreign policy, terrorism, and other issues facing the American people both here and abroad. I almost got the impression that Rice may not necessarily be setting policy as she would have it, but rather serving the president and promoting the Administration views as a good soldier. This lack of impartial or even critical analysis taints what otherwise could be a decent biography of Rice. Without that analysis, it's hard not to view this as a rather one-sided pro-Condi book put out by people who would like to see her run for President or something.
   
   From my perspective, I learned much about Rice, and she's someone who I admire. I *do* have a hard time reconciling that view of her with the current administration she works for. If you approach the book from a purely political viewpoint, there's not much here that would satisfy you. If you're more interested in a human interest portrayal of someone who has succeeded in life, then you'll get more out of it. I would have preferred a portrayal that was more realistic, complete with flaws and mistakes. Instead, it's more of a rah-rah read that may leave you still wondering who the real Condi is...

5 comments about Home and Exile.

1. Since the book is already well-summarized above, I'll just give my own reaction.
   
   I've read a number of Achebe's novels and one essay (the excellent critique of Heart of Darkness) and really enjoyed the "backstage" feeling of hearing the author's first person voice - an insightful and kindly voice. For me, the effect of Achebe's strong positions is heightened by the dignified presentation, and of course by the poignant and funny stories from his own life that he uses to illustrate those positions. As compared to one of my other favorite authors, James Baldwin, Achebe's writing includes less calls to action, and more explanation. For instance, even in his sharp critique of Vidiadhar Naipaul's novels, Achebe's first priority is to shine light on the processes that led to Naipul's failures of vision. I think people who have read Achebe's fiction or essays and liked it, or generally care about literature from an indigenous or "Third World" perspective will really enjoy this short text. Definitely worth the cost, and may be available from the library.



2. Long live the proud son of Africa and our respected statesman.
   Achebe the honest and truthful dispenser of both sides of the story. Colonial griots (to borrow Achebe's words) such as Elspeth Huxley and other apologists have for too long been left alone to justify the dispossession of precious lands and cultures. Until the proud son of Africa made them eat their own words and exposed them for what they are. Dishonest griots deftly laying the groundwork for self-enrichment at the expense of peace loving and decent Human Beings.
   Chinua Achebe as exemplified by his few but precious books writes not to make money but only when he must say something useful. Unlike modern day "authors" who are more about money than substance. I have no doubt Achebe can write profound and moving accounts of African and world issues at the rate of one book a day but he chose only to spend his time teaching.
   It is obvious why the Nobel Prize went to Wole Soyinka instead of Chinua Achebe. Achebe refuses to write for a "foreign" audience and does not take his marching orders from anybody. He is his own man. Africans and honest people all over the world have in their own ways given Achebe the best prize in the world.
   Continuous interest in his worthwhile classics such as Things Fall Apart,The Man of the People,No longer at Ease,Anthills of the Savannah, Morning Yet on Creation Day,Hopes and Impediments and many others.

   Home and Exile may be a small book but has enough three pence (from Achebes "somebody knock me down and have three pence!") to liberate nations and individuals from the grip and stench of colonial and racist apologia masquerading as literature.

   Long live Achebe, proud son of Africa and citizen of the world.
   To know Achebe (by reading his books) is to know how to be an unassuming and proud Human Being who quitely and calmly states his truth for the benefit of us all.




3. Achebe's work was informative, thought provocing, and at times amusing. His work is another example of how important it is for all people to tell their own story/history, especially people who were once disposessed. This little book inspired me to write a few ideas to prevent my experiences from being misinterpreted.



4. The physical brevity of Achebe's "autobiography" truly belies the intrisic wisdom he so effortlessly spews upon his listeners. Mr. Achebe sets out to deconstruct the manifold, post-colonial ills (endemic to the dispossessed of African diasopora) with the assistance of historical literature, creation fables, and his own personal memories. Indeed, a thought provoking manifesto for any fan of the great Achebe; one which will aid the reader to pursue further literature with a new sense of enlightenment.



5. Excellent! Achebe has done it again. This is a must read!

5 comments about Koba the Dread: Laughter and the Twenty Million.

1. There are a number of good negative reviews already, with which I agree for the most part, especially the one that asks: Why was this written in the first place?
   
   The book attempts to stand on the shoulders of much more serious and lengthy works by Conquest, Pipes, Solzhenitsyn, Mandelstam and many others, and might serve as a good, well-written synopsis of their work, but Amis wanted to make it more pesonal than that and took up some very odd, rather remote contingent themes, such was why Soviet history is regarded with laughter, whereas Nazi history is not. Maybe this is more of a problem in Great Britain. I think we Americans are guilty of not knowing as much about Soviet atrocities as we should, but not of undue levity.
   
   Anyway, there is much for sensitive souls to consider in the story of Russia in the 20th century, some of it is hinted at and evoked here - that maybe there is such a thing as conscious evil in the world, for example. And I think that maybe Amis wanted to provide a picture that included both the horror of the millions of civilian murders inflicted in varying degrees of maliciousness and the intellectual (me, him) sitting in his chair reading about it. But if he did, it doesn't really come across, interesting as they might have been. I think it's a intriguing illusion we have that memorializing people whose lives have been unjustly tormented and cut short somehow influences the deceased favorably.
   
   The oddest thing are the juxtapositions of historical (and outrageous) fact with his personal activities, friendships, pre-occupations, which as I say, don't jell. Ingredients are poured together but they don't make anything.
   
   Another theme hinted at but not developed that interests me very much is that Stalin and his brothers in hatred are symptoms of our soulless, inwardly dead age, in the way that alcoholism is a symptom of inner imbalance in an individual. How does a person like Stalin come about? How does an individual gain power enough over other people to get them to murder? Most people can hardly get someone else to bring them a glass of water. What are the inner dynamics of someone who gets millions to murder other millions?
   
   So all in all, it was a disappointment, though it began well.



2. Amis applies his mastery of language to the soviet "experiment", recounting his own story of discovery.
   Horrific and brilliant



3. This book was my introduction to Soviet history when it came out (a role I suspect it played for many readers) and I thought highly of it at the time. The most memorable moment in the book, for me, was Amis's epiphany that even an achieved socialist utopia would be a kind of "hell." But rereading it recently, I didn't think it had aged well. Amis's tone is relentlessly sour, smug, and soggily self-important in the way that a certain type of Nabokov fan is (I like Nabokov, but his airy pomposity is insufferable in the hands of almost any imitator). I couldn't help but think that a more straightforward style would have suited his subject better. For that matter, the book could have been considerably shorter; as is, it's too long to be a good essay and too short to be a good history book. And despite his boast that he combed through "yards" of books on the Soviet Union to write the book, he makes countless errors. For instance, Lenin's brother is listed in the index as "Alexander Lenin." Did none of the yards of books Amis read tell him that Lenin's real name was Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov? He also makes commonsensical errors that are downright comical: He devotes a paragraph to a sentence of Trotsky's which he finds to be appallingly phrased, apparently unaware that Trotsky didn't originally write that sentence in English.
   
   His utter refusal to cite even the simplest sources is also annoying; it's as if he thinks he's writing a "better" type of book than a simple history text. Perhaps he feared that citations would make it too obvious that he's basically ripped off every major historian in the field. His open letter to Christopher Hitchens (an incredibly embarrassing concept) lectures his Trotsky-worshiping friend in such condescending tones that I can almost imagine the letter's recipient cringing on his behalf.
   
   That said, the book is a decent, readable introduction to Stalin's Russia (Amis appears to know next to nothing of Russia prior to 1917), but this emphasis makes the book's thesis seem lopsided. Surely the majority of Western leftists don't need to be told that Stalin was a wicked tyrant. If Amis actually took his own thesis seriously, he'd devote his book to tearing apart Lenin and Trotsky. I couldn't help but think that Amis simply didn't have the intellectual stomach for this task - much easier to regurgitate large chunks of Solzhenitsyn and Conquest and smugly imply that Hitchens is some kind of apologist for the Gulag. At one point he implies that the February Revolution was the "real" revolution, but at another point he brusquely dismisses Kerensky as a fool. Most of his judgments seem filched from other historians. This isn't a bad place to start, but don't let this be the last book you read on the subject.



4. This is a depressing yet brilliantly written book that jumps in your face from page 1 as the brutal history of misery and suffering inflicted on the USSR by Stalin, Lenin and their company of Bolsheviks is laid before the reader. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn explores and describes the soviet system brilliantly in his Gulag Archipelago books, so too Amis explores deep into the psyche of a despotic, hopeless system of government and its deadly effect on the lives of the people it dictated to.
   
   One can only wonder at what kind of bitter, unlucky chance could come upon a people who enjoyed a brief period of inter revolutionary freedom after the overthrow of the imperial system, and with a large range of alternative parties to choose from, ended up with the despotic, psychotic Bolsheviks led by Lenin and co as top dogs at the pinnacle of the pack. Vasily Grossman's words as quoted page 251 is an excellent summation of what freedom is supposed to be. There are so many examples of countless lives destroyed physically, mentally and spiritually in this book that it hits you like a sledgehammer as you wonder thank god l was never born into this insanity. Yet at the beginning the system was built on lies, dictatorship of the proletariat meant dictatorship of all by a handful and if you did not like it then the Soviet govt would say stuff you, you are surplus and you can rot in a concentration camp or be dispatched physically.
   
   Amis maintains his white hot rage against the Bolsheviks, the USSR and of course Stalin for the whole book. The reputations of Lenin and Trotsky also sizzle like sausages on a barbeque on a hot summer's day in the Antipodes as Amis applies his blowtorch of a pen to their revolution and the system of repressive government they created which fell into Stalin's lap. As for Stalin himself, well Amis lays cudgel blows in all directions upon him and leaves no stone unturned in his description of the evil, misery and suffering he created and inflicted upon the Soviet Union. Essentially the book is about Stalin, and Amis is able to capture the evil essence of the man in his personal and public life and lay it all before the reader.



5. British novelist Martin Amis ponders the question, `why is it that one never laughs about Hitler's Holocaust which claimed the lives of 11 million, while members of the left are able to laugh about Stalin's rule, which claimed the lives of over 20 million?' This is an examination of the socio-historical-political facets that underlie Soviet style communism, and seeks to provide explanation for its broad support among the European intellectual elite of the 1950's, including Amis' father Kingsley. It is also a fairly rigorous, though often unoriginal forensic portrait of Stalin's particular breed of tyranny, which Amis attributes both to his insanity as well as the totalitarian nature of the Marxist-Leninist system which he inherited.
   
   This book might be though of as a letter to those of the old left such as Christopher Hitchens, who continue to derive a fair amount of laughter and enjoyment for their past follies. Amis breaks from his historiography in these moments, and he imposes his own anti-communism on Hitchens' work; he contrives dicey judgments such as,
   
   "although I always liked Christopher's journalism, there seemed to me to be something wrong with it, something faintly but pervasively self-defeating: the sense that the truth could be postponed. This flaw disappeared in 1989, and his prose made immense gains in burnish and authority. I used to attribute the change to the death of Christopher's father, late in 1988, and to subsequent convulsions in his life. It had little or nothing to do with that, I now see. It had to do with the collapse of Communism" (pg. 47).
   
   This is painting with a broad brush; one could easily make the case that Hitchens' journalistic authority diminished after his stance on Iraq in 2003. Still, Amis does a competent job of presenting the facts to the members of the hard left such as Hitchens, who have always taken a flippant tone in evaluating the USSR.
   
   Amis' historical work is fine, though it is generally unvaried and unoriginal; he relies mostly on Alexander Solzhenitsyn's standard historical accounts in the Gulag Archipelago Volumes, which are more than competent and standard. There are also some interesting looks at the correspondence between Nabokov and Edmund Wilson during this period. However, Amis' occasionally bizarre political oversimplifications, i.e. "[a]s in Germany, this was the birth of mass-media propaganda; people were unaware, then, that propaganda was propaganda-and propaganda worked" (pg. 213). Such declarations are less then insightful, and fail to provide adequate explanations as to Stalin's popularity. Koba the Dread is still a fairly competent evaluation of Stalin's life and politics, and it provides a fair and brief overview of the Soviet Union for readers who desire a quick blow-by-blow, even if it is derivative of Solzhenitsyn.

5 comments about From the Hood to the Hill: A Story of Overcoming.

1. I truly enjoyed this book. It was an excellent read. I highly recommend
   
   this book.



2. This book was great reading. I bought the book after hearing his sermon at the Crystal Cathedral in Garden Grove where he was a guest speaker a couple of years ago.
   The author is not only a great speaker but an excellent writer also. I could not put the book down until I finished the entire book! It was very encouraging! The message I got was to not grow weary of doing the right things and to do it all of the time. Highly recommended.



3. Barry Black in this book show a man that practice what he preach. As I finished the book immediately I want to review the chapter on leadership for I could become a better leader. This is an excellent book for teens to read also.



4. Barry Black, the first African-American and Seventh-day Adventist chaplain of the U.S. Senate, has written a very inspirational work that's not only autobiographical, but just as much motivational. "From the Hood to the Hill" can sometimes even overwhelm the average reader with Chaplain Black's personna of almost near perfection. For myself, when I go to pickup a work that I expect to be strictly an autobiography, I'd rather have that than the many self-help tips along the way. Motivation has its place, but I would have liked to have read more of the man's real life experiences outside of his chaplain/military adventures. And at only a mere 223 pages, our appetites are left wanting more. The motivational book should have fellowed as a second release. Still very much worth reading though.



5. A very inspirational book!! Well written! I don't have words to give enough accolades to Dr. Black's writing. It is an easy read, written as though he is standing before you having a conversation. The reason i said this is a "must read for men" is that my son (who normally only reads books/article related to his career field) actually loaned me his copy. I found it so inspiring that I strongly recommend it for ALL but especially for young men who feel the pressures of "how to make a successful" life in America today.
   I have never written a review before but I feel so strongly about the uplifting benefits of this book that I felt compelled to write this one.

5 comments about Khomeini: Life of the Ayatolla.

1. This is one of the only, and one of the best biographies about Khomeini written in the English language. it is obvious that the people who gave this book 1 star did so because of how they feel about khomeini, not because of what they think of the book. Moin's book is well researched and referenced. It is not a propoganda tool, seriously! how ridiculous! It is a great book that serves a great function- to actually give a thoroughly researched, well investigated, heavily footnoted, comprehensive discription regarding the life of, whether you like it or not, one of the most influential and powerful figures in modern history. So, you can now do one of several things: be a baby and not read the book and rate it one star anyways since it is about khomeini, and you have linked him to evil and death, or you can read the book, and say it was terrible because you dont believe what Moin is saying because it flies in the face of all you thought you ever knew, even though you are not head of bbc persian, OR you can read the book with an open mind. If you choose the latter, you will come out of the experience with actually factual knowledge regarding the life of Khomeini. I read the book, and i thought it was very objective. I actually wondered what Moin's personal view on Khomeini was. I still do not know. That is how objective the book is. If you are an Iranian ex-pat, i dare you to read it. But only if you are ready to take a look at the facts, and not all the propoganda they have been feeding YOU.



2. There are two main problems in this book. First, this is one of those books where a single sentance really damages the credibility of the writer. The author talked about the people getting tired from all the slogans, from the economic situation and from the blood the revolution has spilled. All this is fine (you can agree or not agree, thats not the point here) until the writer says that six million people attended the funeral which was one of the largest in history. Here the only explanation the author could come up with was that in the end, what was done was done and people forgived Khoemini. I think the reader deserves a better explanation than this. The second problem is that you cant be sure if its a biography, or a book about the political events in 20th century Iran. Other than that it was quite interesting to read. There are many facts in the book and the author has done quite alot of research.



3. A very well-written biography on a rather unknown man in the West (which is odd, considering the effect he has had on the latter part of the 20th Century).
   
   As other reviewers have noted, this book is more than just a biography of Khomeini. It is also the story of an evolving Iran in the 20th Century, and can be read for that reason alone. But, from the humble roots of Khomeini's ancestors, to the man who became known as the "Imam," the book tells the often fantastic tale of Khomeini's remarkable, yet ultimately destructive, life.
   
   Now, I must say first that I despise the man Khomeini for the things he has done to this once rich and beautiful country, full of intelligent people and beautiful history. But, after reading this objectively written book, I have grown to respect the man - not for his horrible ideas, and not for his brutal nature, but because of the things he was able to accomplish, however horrible and misguided they were.
   
   As the jacket notes, Khomeini helped overthrow the rule of man and replace it with the rule of God (according to him, of course). This seems backwards when considering the modern revolutions, where dynastic kings and divine monarchs were tossed out (with their arbitrary rule) in favor of the rule of man, law and justice. What's remarkable is that Khomeini was able to do this while wearing the robe of a cleric. Unlike other dictators like Saddam, Mao, Stalin, or even Castro, Khomeini did not strut around as a tough-guy in military fatigues. he did not openly carry a weapon nor did he openly rule as a "thug." Rather, he appeared holy and worked hard at keeping that image. In fact, there is no doubt that Khomeini was probably a very deeply religious person who truly believed he was instituting the rule of Allah on Earth. It is this aspect of Khomeini that sets him apart from other dictators (although the bloody aftermath and the arbitrary and brutal rule he imposed keep him firmly in the dictator category). The author does a great job of explaining, throughout Khomeini's life, with examples and contemporaneous reports, how he was able to use propaganda, the spiritual nature of Persian society, unhappiness with the Shah, perceived influence by the Brits and Americans, and the power he attained as a religious leader, to overthrow the regime and put in place his "rule by God."
   
   Of course, he had the help of the Revolutionary Guard and Hezbollah once he got the ball rolling, but the story of the man and his Religious Revolution is quite fascinating. The author includes excerpts of Khomeini's writings (some of which are no more than spiritual poems, others give hints to his eventual rule and treatment of women). The author also includes anecdotal evidence of Khomeini's hatred for the Western world while he was in exile in Turkey and France.
   
   The book also does a good job of detailing the moves of Khomeini's rivals and enemies, showing you just how close his Revolution was to failing, etc. A few times you wonder why the Shah did what he did...
   
   And, like all good biographies (if you ask me), this book starts from the beginning and works to the end completely chronologically, from his grandparents, to his birth and boyhood, to his young ministry, to his aging, and finally his death. The book does not skip around between decades and so it reads smoothly. The author does not overwhelm the reader with names and places, either.
   
   Very well done.



4. The Ayatallah Ruhallah Musavi Khomeini was the central actor of the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran, and one of the truly transformational men of history. Without understanding Khomeini, one cannot understand the revolution, nor the state he left behind (with which we are still dealing to this day). This is probably the best treatment of him available in English, despite its limitations, and so I consider it an essential part of the reading of anyone who wants to understand modern Iran. I also found it entertaining to read.
   
   Yet I have to say that this book would have been better subtitled "The PUBLIC Life of the Ayatollah." Baqer Moin has not written a true biography of Khomeini, for few details of his life are included which are not directly relevant to his public role. We read virtually nothing of his family life, for example, and only learn of the names of two of his sons (he had several children) when they become part of his public life. Maybe he had no hobbies or acquaintances outside of theology and politics; nevertheless, the book is fairly narrowly drawn.
   
   Moin does well to bring out Khomeini's mystical side. The ayatallah was not simply a radical Islamist, he was a mystic and a theologian of rare intellectual creativity. He is best known for his doctrine of velayat-e-faqih (the principle is a general one, but his conceptualization of it is radically different from most Shia clerics, including those considered authorities worthy of emulation by all believers, the marja-e-taqlid). Yet his ideas on Islamic spirituality, while not original - they were controversial because they derived from Muslim mystics long condemned by clerics - were combined with his concept of Islamic political philosophy in a revolutionary way.
   
   Khomeini was also a philosopher, and he enjoyed writing poetry, some of which (in translation) is pretty good. There is also some discussion of the more traditional elements of his thinking, although not enough to really constitute an intellectual biography. A fuller biography would flesh out his intellectual development much more.
   
   Readers should beware that Moin assumes a fair amount of knowledge of 20th century Iranian history. For example, with regard to the November 1979 hostage-taking at the U.S. embassy in Tehran, Moin doesn't mention it at all when he covers 1979, but later - assuming the reader is aware of the ongoing hostage crisis - begins talking about how Khomeini used it to his advantage in internal struggles. He does the same thing with regard to Iraq's invasion of Iran in the fall of 1980; he doesn't mention the war starting or discuss it on its own terms to provide background, but at one point just jumps into how Khomeini reacted to it. (The reviewer who described this book as a history of 20th century Iran clearly hasn't studied Iranian history.)
   
   Moin's picture of Khomeini includes the elements familiar to Westerners; his intense dogmatism, his radical commitment to Muslim power, his ruthlessness and his blindness to the immense suffering caused by his decisions. Yet demonization does not bring understanding, and it is important for Westerners to understand the charisma and power of mind and person possessed by this man. Khomeini was not representative of most Shia Muslims, and certainly not most Muslims, but the phenomenon he and his movement represented is an integral part of the Muslim world, and of our world today.



5. Baqer Moin has the information to take you through all the twists and turns the Ayatolla took on the way to establishing his vision of an Islamic State in Iran. The author spends a lot of good words on Khomein's mysticism. From other books about Muslims I had gotten the impression that followers of Islamic mystics tended to be mellower and generally wished to get along with the outside world. But this is a false impression with regard to the Ayatolla, if you believe the author's analyis of His mysticism. --- "For Khomeini the mystic, when Man reaches a sense of unity with God, his anger becomes that of God." (page 296).