5 comments about Andrew Johnson: A Biography.

1. I am currently reading a biography of every President in order. Hans Trefousse' biography of Andrew Johnson certainly seemed to be the best choice for a comprehensive biography of our 17th President.
   
   From an academic standpoint, it is hard to criticize Trefousse's work. He has obviously done the necessary research and is thoroughly well versed in the history of the times. Indeed, this biography is complete and in depth enough and should meet most everyone's expectations. Trefousse clearly understands Johnson and his proper relationship to American history. The only reason I was unable to give this biography a full five stars is the writing is a bit uninspired and doesn't achieve a level of excellence that merits special recognition. The book is more than satisfactory in completing its task but ultimately is only going to appeal to those already interested in the subject matter.
   
   After reading this biography I am still of the opinion that it is likely the best one available for Andrew Johnson. Indeed, it certainly exceeds expectations for a comprehensive biography of a relatively unknown President.



2. I read this book in my ongoing project to read a biography of each President. The best part of this book in my opinion was the length. A lot of biographers lengthen their book to a point where it becomes too detailed and hard to read. That was not the case here.
   
   Johnson was not a great president, nor was he a great person. And, other than the Civil War and Reconstruction he didn't have a key stake in American History. Why go overboard? And the author didn't.
   
   I've read many very wonderful presidential biographies. Truman was fantastic and was 900 pages because it shouldn've been. The 3-part bio on Nixon was 1800 pages and should've been because a lot went on during Nixon's life in politics.
   
   This bio, much like the Andrew Jackson bio I read, was between 300 and 400 pages.... detailed enough to tell the story but not detailed to the point where I got lost or just flat lost interest.
   
   I would recommend this book to anyone wanting to read about Andrew Johnson but if you are looking to make a life out of studying the man it is probably not the book for you because it is not overly detailed.
   
   It was exactly what I was looking for though, well-written, well-researched and gave me a good overview of a President that I have always wanted to know more about. He definitely was not of high moral character and definitely played to his southern base with his actions surrounding reconstruction. That said, I did find it interesting that he was demonized at times by both his colleagues and the press.
   
   Sounds like aside from his thinking in regards to blacks and slavery he was a good and honest man that tried to do what was right most of the time. That was something the author did a very good job detailing and I appreciated it.



3. Treffousse's look at the 17th President of the United States is a fair and well-balanced look at this driven politician. The reader will be left with little doubt that Johnson's racism was his biggest flaw in both his political and personal life. The impeachment is featured but does not dominate the book as it should not.



4. While the "personal" Johnson is given adequate attention, this book works so well because it concentrates on the political realm, a rarity in these days of social history and psychoanalytical treatises. Of course, the impeachment trial is of primary interest, but the focus on Johnson's overwhelming ambition was appreciated as well. Despite his stubborn attitude, inflexibility, and undeniable racism, Johnson was a committed Jacksonian and sought throughout his political life to promote policies friendly to his agrarian philosophy. Because his presidency represented a key transition in American history (a definite weakening of the Executive until TR as well as a regrettable loss of Reconstruction opportunities), Johnson is, with Polk, Lincoln, and Jackson, one of the key figures of the 19th century. Overall, a solid book worthy of a wide readership.



5. I found this book was fair to Johnson, despite the author's reputation as friendly to the Radical Republicans. I found myself believing that the failure of the Senate to impeach Johnson was a good thing, since he obviously was not guilty of an impeachable offense--even as our current president was not. Johnson was actually an able politician and a good President, but his bias against blacks caused him to err grievously in regard to them.

5 comments about Outrageous Hero The B.T. Collins Story.

1. I do not believe that I have ever laughed and cried so much reading the same book than I did from "Outrageous Hero." As one who spent several late "Torch Club" nights with BT and later had the privilage of working with him in the Wilson Administration,I believe his sister, Maureen Collins Baker, has done the Nation and California a tremendous service with her appropriately poignant remembrance of her brother, BT. This book should be required reading for everybody who thinks he or she has a reason to whine about their Country but who have never served it in any capacity. We could indeed use the candor, courage and integrity of 3 million BT's about now. Thank you Maureen for writing this book. God, I hope I spelled everything correctly. Michael B. Neal, Loomis, CA



2. "After reading Martin Curry's review I'm hooked -- I'm definitely
   going to read Outrageous Hero."



3. This story will grab you by the heart. It will make you cry and it will make you laugh. You will never look at your life in quite the same way again. "Outrageous Hero" is the compelling story of B.T. Collins, a genuine American original - a tough talking, straight shooting, dedicated, fun-loving, full-blooded American hero. Here's a man of the people who volunteered for the Green Berets in Vietnam, where a grenade ripped off his arm and his leg. When he picked himself up, he managed to put himself through law school and then worked as the key man for two California governors of opposite parties.
   
   Writer Maureen Collins Baker brilliantly presents this colorful maverick's life, warts and all. It's an emotional roller coaster that will make you proud to be an American. I first met Collins in 1967 while recuperating from my own wounds at an Army Hospital in Pennsylvania. He's been my hero ever since. Now, with Baker's fast-paced biography, he will be all of America's hero as well.



4. Some people hang flags in their front yard, some have bumper stickers...
   Some only celebrate on Memorial Day and the Fourth of July with a hamburg or hotdog. It's not just fireworks and an occasional parade. It means so much more. The men that have fought for our country, now and then deserve the highest recognition and so much more. B.T. Collins was a hero of all heroes. Maureen Collins Baker captures this and pulls you in from the front page with the true story of an american hero, a believer from the moment he was born. A true patriot. He had a vision of what this country was and what it should be. If only everyone could have those same visions, the U.S. would be a better place to live. While I was reading this, I reflected on the ways of the world today, the corrupt politics and how there are holes where the values of the american dream used to be. I think everyone should read this remarkable book. If everyone could just go back to the American roots and values- and believe. Turn your dreams and hopes into reality- and, most importantly, never forget to support our American troops. They are fighting for you and me. Maureen Collins Baker is an extremely talented writer that gives you a glimpse of B.T. After the laughing and crying, by the end of this clever story, you will feel like you knew him all along even if you did not get the honor to meet this Outrageous Hero.



5. I knew BT. I've worked in Sacramento for more than 30 years. He was a string of contradictions. Yet this book captures who he was. It begins with his funeral- which was a series of events that brought together his friends in the Cathedral and at a wake and in the memorial that he worked so hard to create to remember the veterans of Vietnam.
   
   BT, that was how he was known in Sacramento, worked for Jerry Brown and Pete Wilson. He also served as the deputy Treasurer under Tom Hayes. At the end of his life he served as my Assemblyman. He had a fierce wit. In his last campaign, I decided to do some calling for him and got a personal note back from him wondering whether I was employing my time appropriately - if I had enough time to call for him, I had too much free time. That was BT, a bit outrageous about the people but always respectful of the underlying dignity of the public process.
   
   He lost an arm and a leg in Vietnam and yet one of his campaign buttons was of a hook and sometimes referred to himself as Captain Hook. When he headed the California Conservation Corps he drank a glass with Malathion to prove it was safe. His older sister brings together all the things that made him who he was - all those funny quirks yet a strong sense of values that pervaded what he did.
   
   This book is an inspiration.

3 comments about Tough Liberal: Albert Shanker and the Battles Over Schools, Unions, Race, and Democracy..

1. Al was my mentor in the 1970's and this is an honest and true representation of the man I knew. There will never be another like him.



2. Albert Shanker had always been one of my heroes . . . yet until
   I read TOUGH LIBERAL by Richard D. Kahlenberg, I had not known
   too much about him.
   
   That's no longer the case . . . in fact, this excellent biography even
   increased my appreciation of Shanker who once told an interviewer:
   * "If I didn't have to make a living, I would have done this as a volunteer."
   
   What he did was head the American Federation of Teachers for
   well over 20-25 years . . . by doing so, he helped change the
   perception of teachers by having them recognized as professionals:
   
   * A professional receives a liberal-arts education, then specialized
   training, and then must pass a rigorous exam before beginning
   to practice. She participates in an internship, is guided by mentors,
   and participates in reviewing the performance of colleagues. Once these
   professional responsibilities are met come the reciprocal set of rights:
   greater autonomy and higher compensation. In Shanker's vision,
   policies like a rigorous national test, peer review, and career
   ladders were not just defensive moves against critics
   of public-school teachers, they were prerequisites
   to the professionalization of teaching.
   
   TOUGH LIBERAL summarized Shanker's contributions to
   education in one of the finest concluding paragraphs that I've
   ever read:
   
   * In one lifespan, Albert Shanker helped to create the institution
   of collective bargaining for teachers, giving them greater dignity
   and voice in how they would be treated. He then used that power
   to engage in a series of critical education reforms that proved
   instrumental in improving and preserving the institution of public
   education. Both accomplishments served the larger goal he cherished
   above all others: strengthening American democracy. His failure
   to convince fellow liberals to extend their support of democracy more
   broadly--to racial policy, international affairs, and their views of the labor
   movement--leaves open the question: what might society look like
   if we tried?
   
   If you want to learn about Albert Shanker and the labor movement in
   this country, read this book . . . it will also make a great gift for any
   teacher.



3. In his film, Sleeper, Woody Allen immortalized Albert Shanker as the madman responsible for blowing up the world. That helped to get Shanker known outside of NY, but clearly it wasn't the real Shanker. In this highly readable and often exhilarating biography of Shanker, Richard Kahlenberg shows that while Shanker, the architect of the modern teacher union movement (and, it turns out, so much more) surely understood power and accumulated it, his only "madness" was to seek to empower the powerless and to hold this nation to the democratic ideals it espoused and he so cherished. Indeed, far from being "mad," Shanker was both intellectually and politically brilliant -- a rare combination -- an idealist with both a shrewd and compassionate understanding of human nature and a pragmatist who nonetheless stood firm on principles, a stance that sometimes incurred the enmity of allies as much as enemies. This was also a man who dealt with the high and mighty, but who in his writing and speaking could take the most complicated ideas and make them accessible to ordinary people without ever dumbing anything down. Had Kahlenberg just written a biography of this complex and far-ranging man, that probably would have been interesting enough. But Kahlenberg goes further and roots Shanker in the major political and cultural struggles over the soul of the Democratic party and the direction of this country. Regardless of one's view of those struggles and their outcomes, Kahlenberg's recounting of them cannot help but make you think of missed opportunities and "what ifs" to this day. Politics, race, education, the meaning and practice of democracy -- a heady and vitally critical brew. And Kahlenberg stirs and blends this pot well through Shanker, his meaty main ingredient.

5 comments about Enemy Combatant: My Imprisonment at Guantanamo, Bagram, and Kandahar.

1. The author, either a pious bookseller and humanitarian or a supporter of al-Qaida, depending on who you ask, was abducted from his house in Islamabad and spent three years in the titular prisons. Begg is, by other accounts, a reasonable and charming man, and was a model prisoner who got along with several of his guards. His personality shows through in his prose, which is readable, clear, and impassioned without veering into needless vitriol (though he does not bother to hide his disdain for American culture and political ignorance). There are two ways to read the book: the unrepentant apologia of a liar who got caught funding terrorism, or the clarion call of an innocent man nearly destroyed by an unjust and unthinking system. Personally, I think there's a bit of truth to both. Begg leaves out an earlier arrest in his memoir, and even at times condemns himself from his own mouth. It isn't just a post 9/11 America that suspected him; he was investigated by MI5 as early as 1998. He also defends the Taliban, claims that he was allowed to build a girls' school under them, hints that 9/11 was known ahead of time by US authorities who let it happen, and thinks that Afghanistan was attacked because it was a "purist Islamic state" (which is ludicrous). But at the same time, the outrage of this book is that even if Begg was as bad as Bush and company said, he should have gotten a trial. The charges against him should have been made public and plain. He and all the others should have been treated with a modicum of humanity (which is not the same as respect or complacency). And certainly, US and British intelligence should have conducted interrogations with intelligence and coordination, not the repetitive, unhelpful sessions by any number of alphabet agencies vying with each other instead of sharing information. At the very least, Begg's memoir shows that the aftermath of the War on Terror is as badly handled in the prisons as it is in the White House.



2. leaving aside his guilt or innocence and the question of whether his treatment was fair or inhuman......what you won't find here is a political rant, mystical "epiphanies",philosophical speculation or reflections on Islam (except for talk among prisoners as to whether their religion permits attacks such as that of 9/11).instead we are given a calm, clear-eyed, step-by-step account of his time spent in custody. there are descriptions of the various guards, interrogators, and their rules and, finally, when he is released from solitary confinement, his fellow "detainees". he relishes reading so it is surprising that his poetry is the worst doggerel i've ever read. however the prose is clear and precise and he even includes the times when he lost his composure.



3. I am only half way through this book, but I can't resit writing a preliminary review after seeing the other reviews offered here.
   
   This book is not well written. It is endlessly repetitive and the timeline of events is often vague or ambiguous. You have to wade through dozens of reconstructions of Begg's conversations with guards, most of which attempt to show how easy it was to be one up on the American servicemen that he regarded as his social inferiors. He comes across as a self promoting prig and a pansy. This seems to be the pattern for the leading jihadis, they come from relatively privileged backgrounds. They are disaffected young men from comfortable backgrounds using terrorism as a way to work out their own internal conflicts. In Begg's case he has clearly been influenced greatly by the feeling that he was never fully accepted in the UK.
   
   I was a POW in Hanoi for six years. I can understand Begg's emotional response to his imprisonment. He has gone through the same emotional roller coaster that afflicts all prisoners, but that experience is universal and not the fault of the US or anyone else.
   
   I do believe that the Administration erred seriously in not giving all these detainees POW status. One result of doing so would be that there would be no discussion of habeus corpus or detention without trial or guilt. POWs are guilty of nothing but are detained until exchanged by agreement with the enemy or the conclusion of hostilities. They have no right to expect anything else. Almost all of the mistreatment that has befallen the detainees has been generated by confusion at all levels as to what the standards of treatment should have been. The confusion came from the top and worked down through all levels. The bad decisions were urged upon the Administration by a bunch of attorneys who, to be blunt, had no idea what they were talking about. They were way out of their league. Their prime motivation was merely to provide legal rationale for what the Administration was determined to do anyway. Advice from senior experienced military leaders was disregarded by civilian leaders. This is especially galling as many of those civilians evaded service during Vietnam while the senior military leaders all earned their hard won experience in Vietnam.
   
   The US fell into the same trap the Vietnamese did by denying a hated enemy the protection of the Geneva conventions. But there are important differences. Those detained by the US got enough to eat. To bad that Begg didn't care for the food- he got enough to eat. Reports are that most Gitmo detainees have put on a lot of weight. We who were POWs in Vietnam did not have that problem. The diet was semi starvation until the last months of the war. No, it wasn't because the guards didn't have anything better. They were well fed.
   
   Begg wrote and received mail. I didn't write or receive mail for almost four years, and then it was only a small six line form several times a year. The Vietnamese did not list me and most others as captured until late in the war. Like most, I was "missing presumed captured" and my family had no idea if I was alive or dead.
   
   Begg had paper to write with and books to read. We had none of that until the last month of the war. Six years with no way to make any use of your time except what was inside your head.
   
   Begg did not get as much opportunity to exercise as he wanted. Compare that to never.
   
   Begg was closely monitored and got adequate medical attention. We had none of that. Those injured prior to or during capture were lucky to live. If they lived they were to suffer for years with bones that knit together at crazy angles because they were never set. Wounds often drained and festered for years because the dressings were never changed and antibiotics were never used consistantly. Many died of their wounds. Ask John McCain. He was left to die until the Vietnamese realized he was the son of an Admiral and might be of some use. Even so the treatment given was so clumsy that he still has a gimp arm and other less visible injuries. About 137 Americans that we are pretty sure were captured never returned and no explanation has ever come from Vietnam. They either died of wounds not treated or were tortured to death or were executed. That's a pretty substantial number when you realize that the there were less than 600 American POWs. True, some detainees have died in our custody, and there may be culpability in those cases, but we are talking about a hand full out of thousands of detainees, most of whom were released and never sent to Gitmo.
   
   I haven't come across anything yet in Begg's book that sounds like torture. Torture was universal for us and there wasn't any doubt that it was torture. What happened met every conceivable definition, even the cockeyed one used by the Administration. Some died during torture. I almost did. I am alive only by a lucky accident I don't choose to explain here.
   
   Begg's places of detention were regularly visited by the ICRC. That never happened in Vietnam.
   
   I could go on, but when Begg finds so much time to complain about the fact that some of the guards were unfriendly or even insulting, he doesn't have much to complain about. Imprisonment is not pleasant and military discipline isn't either. Begg did not seem to have any background to prepare him for either- lucky him. Bottom line to me is that his experience was a cake walk except for the fact that he was detained.
   
   Of course, the real issue is whether he should have been detained at all. The answer to that is maybe yes, maybe no. He is certainly not going to admit in his book that he was working with Al Quaida. And guess what- he was released long before the war ended. Maybe he was totally blameless, maybe he was just no longer a threat. His release may have been conditioned on a pledge of good behavior and no further participation in efforts against the US. If he had had POW status, that would be called parole, which has a long history in international law. If a POW and not paroled, he would still be detained and would have no access to any court. Keep in mind that the status of "enemy combatant" is someone who has less protection from the Geneva Conventions than a POW. The reason for that is that the detainee has been captured in the field engaging hostilities without being a part of any recognized armed force. Then consider that a POW will be detained until the end of hostilities without accusation or trial of any kind. If "enemy combatants" have less protection than POWs, how is it that they should have access to our legal system? The Administration's use of the "enemy combatant" status has been an error that helps no one. It has caused a lot of confusion even among legal scholars who should know better. Had they been kept as POWs, they could be kept until the end of hostilities with out trial, accusation or access to any court. If the US had any reason to believe any of them were guilty of crimes against the laws of war, they could still be tried for those acts. POW status does not protect anyone from criminal prosecution.
   
   I'm not happy with the way we've handled our captives in this conflict, but I challenge anyone to name any enemy we have ever faced who has done as well as the imperfect performance we have delivered this time.



4. Moazzam Begg has written a memoir about an experience during three years as a "detainee" that reminds one of Franz Kafka's fiction, but he claims that these things really happened and he writes with such clarity, conviction, and telling detail that I, for one, am convinced. Whether or not he was "guilty" is a mute point because although he was accused of many things - some quite fantastic and improbable - and even "confessed" under duress, he was never charged or tried for any crime. After three years of harsh treatment and over three hundred interrogation sessions, he was merely told he was free to go with no apology, thanks or recompense.
   Although I consider myself well educated, I know little about the language, culture, history, and religion of Muslims; I have few acquaintances and no friends from that world. In this respect, I believe I am typical of most other native born senior citizen of the United States. I am indebted to Begg for lifting this veil of ignorance for me; he is an excellent ambassador. Interspersed in this narrative about what Hannah Arendt called the "banality of evil" are asides and incidents revealing information and insights valuable to my understanding. If he is an example of Islam in practice, I want to know more about it. In the midst of his ordeal he was able to reach out to many of his guards and interrogators and establish a human bond. I was reminded of Pogo's memorable statement: "we have met the enemy and he is us." If you are old enough to remember that line, you may also remember the bad old days of McCarthyism and anti-communist hysteria and have a sense of déjà vu. You might do well to pay close attention to this book as a primmer on how to survive the kind of ordeal that Begg suffered through. In the current political environment of anti-terrorist hysteria, if you give aid, comfort, or support to Begg or people like him you could well be labeled "Enemy Combatent" and suffer the same fate or worse.



5. Moazzam Begg's story is basically this: despite all the coincidences and all the evidence of Begg's involvement in al-Qaida and jihadist movements in general, he claims of innocence and toruture are to be taken at face value. Oh, sure, he and lilttle Tokyo Rose co-author write a excellent piece of fiction; dramatic, poetic, moving and completely full of horse manure.
   
   Never mind that he joined a jihadi street gang, "The Lynx" as a teen. Forget about the fact that he was arrested in 1994 after a raid and a search of his home found night vision goggles, a bulletproof vest, and extremist Islamic literature, because after all, it was just a "hobby". Forget that he has traveled to every jihadist cause celeb battle field: Chechnya, Bosnia, and Afghanistan, and that he also admits to financially supporting these causes, because after all he "swears" that he never took part in active combat. Forget that during another arrest in 2000 on a raid of the Maktabah Al Ansar bookshop, his computer was loaded with encrypted files, because the judge said he did not have to provide Scotland Yard with the decrypted information. Forget that wire transfer forms to an account of his in Pakistan were found by US and British special forces in an al-Qaida training camp near Jalalabad.
   
   And my favorite: the only reason he went to the Taliban ruled Afghanistan was to .... better have a seat ..... he claims he when to open up a school for girls. A school for girls .... unfreakin' believable.
   
   To take Begg's story at face values requires one to suspend all logic and ignore every piece of evidence that would lead any reasonable person to the conclusion that he is a violent jihadist.
   
   The only way Begg should have left Gitmo is in a coffin not a rose parade from the Muslim Brotherhood.

5 comments about JIMMY CARTER: A Comprehensive Biography from Plains to Post-Presidency.

1. The preface starts off indicating the original idea for this book: as a campaign book and biography. So put on those rose-colored glasses and read about Jimmy in third-person. I don't like the posturing, this book reads like it was written to impress rather than give the reader a glimpse of who Jimmy is. Seems to me the author was too close to the president to offer an objective viewpoint. His early life is glossed over and it's just the 'character building' traits which are revealed. I thought Colin Powell's "My American Journey" and Anderson's "Che" did a much better job of revealing the person, and telling the story.
   
   An odd part of this book was the long family history in the beginning. Maybe this was one facet Jimmy inserted, but it just went off on a long tangent.



2. Bourne shows how the the Carter family values and the values of the South shaped Jimmy and the impact that these values had on his presidency. His father's frugality and work ethic are manifest throughout Carter's life, while his mother's racial tolerance and kindness are as well. But his blind devotion to principle and weak managerial skills hindered relations with Washington power brokers and ultimately damaged his presidency.
   
   Some of the most interesting reading is how Carter won the White House, coming from a complete unknown and total outsider to become the most powerful man in the world. And Bourne does an excellent job describing the election campaign. A surprising subtheme of the book is how some of the elements of the Reagan revolution were foreshadowed in Carter's policies, such as the emphasis on a strong defense and confronting the Soviets.
   
   One weakness of the book is the author's hatred of the Reagan administration. He can hardly mention Reagan's name without calling him racist, a charge that is baseless as far as I know. He also assumes that the charges that Reagan interfered in the Iran hostage release in order to win the election are true without discussing the evidence. As far as I know, the evidence for this is controversial at best. Finally, the discussion of his administration could have been better organized--I could not determine if it was chronological or thematic.
   
   The book reveals the complexity of Carter. Although he participated in Southern Baptist Home Mission Board outreach programs, he was either pro-choice or pro-abortion. Although he did more for blacks as governor of Georgia than any previous governor, he was also a supporter of the arch-segregationist George Wallace. Although he was willing to sacrifice almost anything for principle, he ran some awfully dirty campaigns for office in Georgia. Bourne is to be commended for not shying away from describing these complexities.
   
   Bourne was the health advisor for part of the Carter administration, so this is definitely an insider view of his presidency. But Bourne does a good job describing all of Carter's life, from childhood to Navy service to Georgia politics to the presidency to post-presidency, ending with Carter's 70th birthday in 1994.
   
   Overall, a good biography, although it inevitably suffers from being written by an insider and by the lack of historical distance from the main actor. But you will come to know Carter in his glories and his failings.



3. I'm a Republican who nevertheless admired Jimmy Carter greatly, and I am saddened by his recent petulant rants agains President George W. Bush. He has every right to diagree with him but succumbing to the conspiracy theories of the wacko left is unseemly for a former President. Bourne needs to write a sequel.



4. Over the last several years I've read more than 35 presidential biographies, usually taking the advice of Amazon readers who have steered me toward the best available choices. While not among the very best of biographies, Bourne's effort is near or in the top ten presidential biographies.
   
   Jimmy Carter is probably the most intelligent president of my lifetime, an extremely hard worker, ambitious, very religious and thoughtful about his religion but also willing to compromise his principles to get ahead. He is also stubborn and not willing to be shown up. He has usually viewed himself as an outsider, and while this helped convince Americans to elect him president, it did not prepare him to work well with Washington politicians and insiders to achieve many of his goals.
   
   Along with describing Carter's life prior to the presidency, the first half is fascinating for its description of race and politics in the South during the 60's and 70's, laying out an outline of how to win the presidency through a grass roots campaign, the suspicion that Carters religious beliefs caused, and as a reminder of issues that campaigns focused on in the 70's (election ethics, environmental issues, education reform, national health insurance, and other populist sorts of themes) - the four year campaign for president is told in detail (150 pages), and in ways it seems overly long, but this is perhaps the most remarkable aspect of Carter's life. The strategy and effort to elect an unknown governor to be president is pretty fascinating stuff.
   
   I started to fear Bourne would run out of energy and pages to provide much detail about Carter's presidency. I was wrong. He captures the problems Carter and America faced, the often ineffective policy implementation of the Carter White House, and Carter's unwillingness to compromise or "play the game" with Congress. Carter's post-presidential years are cevered well.
   
   Bourne has been a Carter advisor for nearly 30 years, but his book is balanced and thoughtful. He is not shy about criticizing Carter. Bourne writes well, and kept my interest throughout the narrative. In some ways the book appears to be published on the cheap. Double spacing between sections doesn't happen. There is no table of contents or chapter names. Despite these few limitations this is a highly recommended presidential biography.



5. I walked through the isles of my public library looking for something to read. There was a large book with the words ' JIMMY CARTER' written on it that was sticking out of a shelf. I picked it up and decided to read it. This has been one of the best choices for reading I have ever made. Jimmy Carter is an extrodinary man, who's life is a lot more detailed and complex than I would have thought. This biography traces his life from birth, through the Navy, State Senatorial duties, Governorship and his Presidency. Jimmy Carter is shown as the admirable and honest man that he is. A real role model for all, Jimmy Carter is amazing, and so is this book.

5 comments about President Nixon: Alone in the White House.

1. Richard Reeves is a fair author. Having read his previous book on President Kennedy, I was interested in his take on Nixon. This book is not a bio, nor is it a political history per se. Rather this book, like the Kennedy and Reagan books, weaves a path through the first four years of Nixon's presidency. The age old question will always remain: how a guy as smart as Richard Nixon, and he was smart, got caught up in a bevy of intrigue, black ops, and paranoia.



2. This is a solid work of Presidential scholarship. I appreciated its "worm's eye" view because it allows for the presentation of a great many primary source materials and documents that are invaluable for summing up the bizarre man who was President Richard Nixon. Reeves reveals a fair amount of personal bias and dislike for his subject here, but, fortunately, the intrusions of his point-of-view are not ubiquitous. Reeves seems to unquestionably believe that busing was good for blacks and it appears that he has an affinity for most government programs; a stance that is totally unwarranted. That being said, the work remains well-organized, clear and valuable. Reeves is a biographer and journalist so, unlike some of the other reviewers, I was glad that he did not share with us his psychological observations of the President. In all likelihood, they would have been ungrounded. Alone in the White House is a good, but not great, book.



3. Mr. Reeves look at the Nixon presidency from the vantage point of the President himself provides the reader with a fascinating look at one of the most compelling political figures of our time.
   
   To paraphrase Bob Dole, it was a miracle that Nixon ever made it to the pinnacle of political power. From the very first day in office, we are given the picture of a man who is both elated that he has reached his destiny, but at the same time is unable to savor the moment. Although the book does not deal with RN's life, Reeves does a masterful job at painting a portrait of a man embittered by the cut and thrust of politics. We see a man who has his eye on his enemies, real and imagined, and who is bound and determined to triumph over him.
   
   Reeves does indeed show us the "who, what, when, where..." of the Nixon presidency, yet resists the temptation of playing amateur psychologist and does not address the "why" of Richard Nixon.
   
   Instead we are treated to a story of a man who was truly "alone in the White House." However, this title is misleading, for Nixon's penchant for solitude, and secrecy are only part of the story. A better title for this book would have been "President Nixon: The Remaking of the Presidency," because that is exactly what he set out to do.
   
   Reeves presents a balanced look at RN. We see him at his best; statesmen, "architect" of foreign policy, strategic thinker, and visionary for a stable world order.
   
   We also get a look at the man at his worst; the many "horrors" of Watergate, his pathological Jew-baiting, his thin-skinned reaction to the press, his obsession with being seen as a "man of the people," and on and on. In sum, there is much to dislike about Richard Nixon; there is also much to admire.
   
   After reading a book like this, one has to wonder what would the Nixon legacy have been if he chose not to cover up Watergate and lanced the boil, dug deep, and plowed ahead to finish his second term. Reeves' book shows all too clearly, and poignantly, that "the Old Man" was incapable of doing anything but he did at the time, which is a shame. RN's legacy is that he left a stain on the body politic that has engendered a cynacism toward politics.



4. Reeves delivers an exciting and wonderful book that chronicles Nixon's presidential years. This book begins with Nixon entering office and ends on the day he leaves office. It goes day by day through the presidency and gives you a good sense of what the Nixon administration was thinking and what was happening in the country at the same time. From foreign policy with China and Russia to domestic problems like Kent State this book covers everything you would want to know about the Nixon Administration. It is easily five stars. The book is very readable and is a great reference guide for those who just want to learn about Nixon or those who want to study his administration in depth.



5. I found this a fascinating look at presidential power and gave me further insights into Nixon and the power structure that existed around him. I remember the days of Watergate but this gave me new insights and background information about what actually went on. It's truly a slice of living history. Also the similarities between Vietnam and Iraq are almost frightening...perhaps some of those in command should read this too.

5 comments about Not For Ourselves Alone: The Story of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony.

1. This was a wonderful and engaging read. Not only were you given a clear picture of both Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, but the book cites numerous powerful men and women who were active in the suffrage movement. This book is like a small taste of women's history that leaves you yearning for more. However, I wouldn't overlook this book just because it is not extremely specific, it is very helpful in getting a feel for the suffrage movement as a whole.



2. This book fills a glaring need in history books. Not many people know more about Susan B. Anthony than she was one the dollar coin. This book corrects that oversight, and then some. Not only does the book give a balanced and well thought out look at Anthony and Stanton, the reader is also introduced to many, many other women who worked so hard for women rights.
   I especially liked that the book didn't shy away from some of these women's more controversial stands, such as taking on the black person's cause.
   All in all, a very good book.



3. This book provides insight and history on the struggle that women went through to get the right to vote. It includes all kinds of interesting background and perspectives. It was a real eye opener for me and I'm giving it as a gift to all the young women I know.



4. This book was an eye opener for me. Every woman should read this book to understand the fight for our right to vote. These women devoted their lives to something they knew they would never even see in their live time! Its a story of courage and strength. It's makes one feel proud to be a woman.



5. This book is richly woven with details that dive into the true characters of these two beautiful souls. The book gives a truly amazing account of not only Elizabeth Cady Stanton & Susan B. Anthony, but dives into their lives and characters. The reader obtains a true understanding of these women's motivations, techniques, skills, and contributions, in a brilliant biography with great quotes, accounts, photographs, and special archives directly from the time period of Susan & Elizabeth, relating to their work. Ken Burns & Geoffrey C. Ward have made quite an accomplishment with this extraordinary account.

5 comments about Terrorism: Theirs and Ours.

1. Take a look at the cover photo of this book, and the inside content becomes apparent. You can see people, who are now branded as terrorists, were, at one time, chief guests in the White House.
   
   This book carries some of Eqbal Ahmad's writings and transcripts of lectures on various international conflicts including US-Afghanistan and India-Pakistan. This book does a good job of exposing US Govt's hypocrisy and its unilateral goal of furthering only its own interests at the expense of everything and everyone in this world. It also tells you why and how the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts erupted, and why they have only worsened ever since they began. There's a brief discussion on the Kashmir issue as well. I wish it carried more details. Overall, this book presents to its readers a brief but accurate insight into the most prominent present day international conflicts.
   
   Do not think that if you are not interested in international politics, you may find this book boring. Due to its concise nature, this book is very much readable and comprehensible to all. I say it is a "must-have" for every American, because it will tell them what their politicians haven't. US is the only country that, since its birth, has been at war every single day of the year at some place on this earth. It is mind-boggling to imagine what kind of wealth its people would have amassed if the same trillions of dollars that have been cumulatively spent on mindless killing of people and building nuclear weapons that will never be used, had been just distributed in cash to its citizens. It is no wonder that Eqbal Ahmad's words carried a great deal of truth. Why else would the CIA send its operatives to his house at night to threaten him if he didn't shut up? Eqbal was however up to the challenge, and told them to pack-off immediately since he was acting only in accordance with the US constitution, which says - "No taxation without representation". He said that since his views were not represented by the policies of the US Govt even though he paid taxes, he had every right to protest.
   
   That was Mr Eqbal Ahmad, a foremost authority on international conflicts, alongside, I would say, Noam Chomsky. Do not miss this book. It is worth a thousand times its cover price. After reading this book, I can assure, you will be only egged on to read his other detailed books.



2. Now, if this only came with crayons and pictures to color in, it might attract the attention of those who really need a crash course in terrorism. To the point, devine intervention happens to other people, but the self-righteousness of powerful America is what makes it so hypocritical. Unfortunately, I expect this primer to be as relevant for decades to come, so let's hope it doesn't go out of print.



3. Wonderful prescient, but all too brief. Serves as a good introduction to the ideas of the dear departed Ahmad who would be a valuable contributor to the worldwide debate on what exactly consititutes terrorism. The way he shows that the term "terrorism" is construed to eliminate any links to state-sponsored violence and torture demands our attention and respect. This is a courageous and intelligent book.



4. This book affirms that American foreign allies are classified on whether their own goals converge or diverge from our own.
   
   During the 1970's and 1980's we had partnered with Saddam, deciding that he was a 'brutal dictator' only when his objectives no longer echoed American public policy priorities.
   
   Similarly, the people whom the State department now identifies as being 'dangerous' were at one point benign or even considered beneficial---because they had then supported our world view. It is critical and sobering to wonder who is organizing outside of today's policymaker scrutiny.
   
   Regardless of the administration, such relationships of convenience are THE rule in international relations. America talks a good deal about wanting to respect human rights, but the real world often facilitates less stringency.



5. From the perspective of someone from South Asia (Ahamd was from Pakistan), this book looks deeper at this thing called terrorism.
   
   There are several aspects to the official approach to terrorism. First, terrorists change. Yesterday's terrorist is today's freedom fighter, and vice versa. Second, there seems to be no such thing as an "official" definition of terrorism. Explanations are designed to arouse our emotions, instead of stimulating our intelligence. Third, government officials may not be able to define terrorism, but they know that it must be stamped out worldwide.
   
   Fourth, it's supposedly possible to tell the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter. Fifth, the official approach ignores the causes of terrorism. Cause? What cause? Sixth, the moral revulsion against terrorism needs to be selective. Terror from disapproved groups needs to be strongly condemned, but terror from allies or approved groups can be ignored.
   
   Why do groups commit terrorist acts? Getting their grievances heard through regular channels hasn't worked, so, to them, terrorism is the only way to be heard. Terrorism is an expression of anger and helplessness, and also a sense of betrayal. Through the spread of modern technology and communications, terror has become globalized. Everyone is a target.
   
   The author recommends several approaches for America. Stop with the double standards. Don't condone some terrorism, and condemn others. In the present situation, such an approach will not work. Also, America should actually consider the causes of terrorism. It's a political problem; seek a political solution. The author also recommends reinforcing the framework of international law. Try going through the International Court of Justice.
   
   This is an excellent book. It's short, and written from a non-American perspective. It does a fine job looking at the background behind terrorism, and it's well worth reading.

No comments about Minnie Fisher Cunningham: A Suffragist's Life in Politics.

1 comments about Citizen: Jane Addams and the Struggle for Democracy.

1. This is a book about a woman who made a difference. It is also the story of a woman's triumph over Victorian ideas about a woman's place and over personal uncrtainties. Jane Addams became a leading humanitarian and spokesperson for women but she also led struggles which enhanced the notion of democracy in this country and the world. Ms. Addams did not see democracy as neoconservatives see it today. She was not a fighter for capitalism or Republican values but rather for participation and inclusion. She was also a crusader for world peace.
   
   Jane Addams and her colleagues were not like 21st century Americans. She was practically humorless and was moved by moral imperatives almost unknown to us. However, she, aside from being the "real thing", was famous for her kindness to immigrants and children.
   
   This book deals with her early life and her humanitarian efforts in the United States. It discusses the founding of Hull House, one of the first settlement houses in this country, and relates the operation of Hull House to the awakening of Addams' interest in many important causes.
   
   The book is a good read for those who are interested in women's history or in the history of reform and, indeed, radicalism in this country (for she was a radical). It is well researched and written and does not try to turn Addams into a midwestern Mother Teresa.