5 comments about Love in Black and White: A Memoir of Race, Religion, and Romance.

1. Autobiography that's more about the man than the couple, tracing from his childhood in Maine through the White House. Interspersed are sections about Janet Langhart, and her upbringing. The book is an uplifting memoir that educates readers about the decades of historical, political, military social, racial, and Black history milestones in the U.S., as well as those of Mr. Cohen and Ms. Langhart.
   
   A couple of times or so, there were disconnects from a topic launching into something else; and some occasional grammar things going on that seemed out of character.
   
   The books was informative and candid, including paths of excellence and failure for both Mr. Cohen and his future wife. Both came from trailblazing ancestors and in turn carried on that tradition. Mr. Cohen didn't spare himself with a revisionist eye to his fighting youth, bad grades, and even 'cursing like a one-eyed pirate' one day. We learn of his experiences of racism from both the Jewish community and others from a young age forward. Mr. Cohen's mother was Irish Catholic and his father Jewish. Mr. Cohen went on to forgive those who ostracized him and denied him his birthright and merit of a Bar Mitzvah.
   
   Ms. Langhart went on to lead the way from being among the first Fashion Fair models, relegated to segregated accommodations while touring the country to represent the beauty of Black women, as founder Robert Johnson, later of BET fame, and then of the Johnson Publishing dynasty, Jet and Ebony, had envisioned. The reader gets to see the underside as well as the triumphs. Apparently Mr. Johnson had to buy all of the clothing rather than the typical 'loan' of clothes from designers, as people did not want to wear what had been on black bodies. Readers get to see Janet develop from a small child holding fast to her mother's words of hope and tolerance, though she worked as a domestic for white people. Incidentally, I'd seen Janet over the years and one would've never guessed the struggles she'd faced or the disappointments. Her mother and she were basically abandoned by her father, a returning soldier, who'd been a war hero, but had advised his daughter that upon his return he would not be wearing his uniform in the South on the ride home, and he'd be sitting in the back of the bus, disheartened about fighting for freedom for others abroad while at home, he was treated as if he were the enemy. At some point in the book, Janet protests the disparaging treatment of returning black soldiers who had to sit at the back of an auditorium, while foreign prisoners of war were treated like white people and sat at the front.
   
   Incidentally, when other cultural movements such as interracial movements and gay movements look to Black culture in how to navigate in the mainstream culture, it's instructive to note how Black culture has always been of the opinion about representing a good profile to the mainstream. Countering stereotypes was the least activism one could do. In the Fashion Fair tradition, the NAACP, also continues to encourage Black people to keep representing Black culture well with its annual "Image" Awards. The idea of good representation to the public. In the book "Navigating Interracial Borders, Black-White Couples and Their Social Worlds" the author seemed off put with the idea that interracial couples would want to 'keep up a front'. Not airing dirty laundry, and keeping the positive out front to offset the stereotypes. In this regard, it's no different than what Black people have done since Day 1, and continue to do. I believe immigrants did the same as a survival mechanism, too. It works. Role modeling. If you see it, you can achieve it. You can believe, and work towards it. Like any habit, practice makes perfect.
   
   In Cohen's book, you will see the good. That's what counts. Like any married couple, a united front.
   
   We learn that the people who Janet's mother worked for were Jewish, and that Janet's mother adopted some of their practices, like cooking Kosher food, and instilling certain values in her children, in spite of their surroundings and those negative persons around them. Janet's mother didn't teach hate. Nowhere in the book did I read anything but good things about Black men, or negative remarks about shiftless Black men who didn't take care of their children or any nonsense even though Janet's father left the family. It would have been an easy stereotype to exploit given the circumstance. Instead, there were many Black History nods. In Janet's developing career, she met icon after icon in the Black community, including Mahalia Jackson and Martin Luther King, Jr., who reportedly was like a son to Mahalia, and who frequently visited and stayed in her home, as did some other Black icons. The practice of hosting Black people in residences was a collective practice to counter Jim Crow segregation that either excluded Black people from public accommodations altogether, or offered conditions that were very bad. Janet was mentored by a range of Black icons, including Muhammad Ali, who advised her when his heavyweight title was stripped because he wouldn't serve in the War, that he still had his self respect, and that was more valuable than anything someone could give and take away at whim. Years later, during her rise from model to weather girl to broadcast journalist, readers would see how the leaders around her were able to impart survival wisdom. Years later, when Bill Clinton picked Cohen to be Secretary of Defense--a Republican Cohen, no less, and a "Jew" to some, Janet would be treated with the utmost respect to the extent that she began to focus on the good that was in her life. She even began to pray and kiss the flag in Cohen's office when she took to heart lessons learned and experiences that showed her that there are different kinds of people, and there are good people who welcome good people to work for good together.
   
   In this regard, Janet's experience with the military prior to Cohen was that it mistreated Black people like her father, and gave empty promises at best. Her mother and her family had a new home in the housing projects set up by the military for returning Black soldiers. It was a glimpse of the later military 'family' vision that would again renew her faith in the good outweighing the bad. I got chills and choked up when Cohen described how he'd secretly made a special request to honor Janet to the White House leaders during his final days as SecDef.
   
   Now, there's a love story. Cohen and Langhart were formerly married. Ironically, both Janet's brother as well as one of Cohen's sons married someone of the opposite race. Readers will be surprised to hear about the intimate details of a medical situation that Janet faced, and which no doubt had enormous impact on her life.
   
   I don't think the book title really reflects the content of the book. The books is primarily an autobiography of Cohen's life, which didn't intersect with Janet's til only little more than a decade ago. However, some people believe, as mentioned in the book Janet does, in fate. In which case, there life partner was always on their way to them. It wasn't a matter of if but when the two would come together, and how they get there, is really what the book includes. I can see Cohen loving B-ball, his father loving B-ball, and thus Cohen playing on teams where he met more than just White males. I was tickled a bit about his doing the Black handshake with Black men, playing while in the Senate with some Black Congressmen. I could see that if his mother was feisty and had her own independence and opinions that she felt free to express, that Cohen would not be put off by an outspoken Black woman like Langhart.
   
   In the book Cohen mentions Janet's loving his blue eyes. I'd have to say I wish Janet hadn't worn blue contacts on the book cover. While she's got some mixed ancestry, it's not front and center, as in her parents are both black. Somewhere down the line, many Black people have Native American, or White people, etc. in their family tree. People who aim to be a 'couple' will sometimes start dressing alike, and even down the line, are supposedly starting to morph into each other, with similar features.
   
   Since the couple did not have kids, it was a bonus to them in a way because Janet could travel with him everywhere he went and he had no guilt about forsaking the family for his job, as with the case with his first marriage. That both of them could interrelate about their experiences across the board, and stand strong together, was more than a galvanizing force. Readers get to see their perspectives on a range of U.S. events, from the lynching of Emmit Till to Watergate to the assassination of MLK, Jr., Hoover, to USS Cole, Vietnam, WWII, Katrina, the Kanye West TV comment. The times did change, who'd have thought a Republican, an immigrant's son no less who rose from living in a room with 5 people to become an lawyer, Congressman, Senator, SecDef, would be right there networking across the board for better times. And walking into the White House at the invite of hipster Bill Clinton, with his Black wife by his side. In these times. The time for all good men to rise.
   
   If there's an interracial story of love and marriage, a united front, this is it. Representing. As always. That we are more than what meets the eye.



2. I was disipointed that he did not reveal the intensity or depth of of attraction/love. Howeve,his account of his political career was interesting enough for me to want to read more of the stories by politicians during critical times in this country.



3. IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE IN THE AFRO AMERICAN COMMUNITY THAT FAIRER SKINNED PEOPLE HAVE IT MUCH EASIER THAN DARKER SKINNED MEMBERS. THIS IS BECAUSE THE FAIRER SKINNED MEMBERS ARE MORE READILY ACCEPTED AND ARE TREATED AS IF THEIR VALUE IS SOME HOW GREATER. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE DARKER SKINNER MEMBERS TRY HARDER AND WORK HARDER. YOU CAN SEE THIS IN AFRO AMERICANS WHO ARE SUCCESSFUL IN MUSIC, SPORTS, MEDICINE, AND COMMUNICATIONS. THIS IS WHY SO MANY PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY BELIEVE THAT THESE HAVE MORE TALENT THAN THE FAIRER SKINNED ONES BECAUSE THE BATTLE IS HARDER.
   THIS IS WHY THIS BOOK IS NOT REALY VALID TO MOST OF THE POPULATION IN THE AFRO-AMERICAN COMMUNITY. SELECTIVE RACISM AND RACISM WITHIN A RACE. I DREAM ABOUT A TIME WHEN INTER-RACIAL COUPLES STOP TEACHING THEIR OFFSPRING THAT THEY ARE BETTER THAN THOSE WHO HAVE PARENTS THAT ARE BOTH AFRO-AMERICAN



4. I find it really amusing that these people with caucasion features who have a pretty easy time being accepted in the "white world", some how think they are the authority on race relations or interracial relationships. I have friends who married very dark skinned African Americans who lived in working class neighborhoods. Their love survived more pain, hardship, and strife then that half-breed Mrs. Cohen could ever imagine. I seriously doubt that Mr. Cohen would have it as bad a dark skinned male, with a white woman on his arm.
   
   Get a clue!



5. This is a love story. The journey of two people arriving at the same place in time, finally. They share their respective experiences with sharp incisive candor. Readers are given a "no holds barred" look into their world.
   
   Quite frankly, they are right. It is the time for a book of this quality to be written. Two little children born and raised in America, each having individual, separate horrendous struggles, - yet surviving, maturing, achieving success. Through their eyes, we experience life in the political, journalist, entertainment,social, personal, civil rights, and sports arena of action. Through them We meet a young Muhammad Ali, Quincey Jones, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, Hilary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Sidney Poiter, Richard Nixon, Herbert Hoover, the FBI, Deepak Chopra, Bruce Gordon, Mahalia Jackson, John Johnson, Andrew Young, soldiers in Bosnia and many many more. Beautiful glossy photographs capture memorable moments. Thank you Bill and Janet. Your respective journeys were often jarring, but seldom boring. The book contains enlightening perspectives and is a wake-up call to the sometimes harsh yet mostly beautiful realities of life here on planet earth. And much like the lyrics of that sweet old poignant song, " We will show them as we walk together in the sun, that our two different worlds are one," -- you have indeed done just that.
   
   
   
   I have never met William Cohen and Janet Langhart Cohen, but I have observed Janet's steady progress and achievements, over the years, from the cover of Jet Magazine to the Ebony Fashion Fair, and her television show. I have always been inspired by her courage, intelligence and professionalism. I am an African-American woman. This book is excellent and informative. Its final chapter features Janet's masterfully crafted play, a dialogue between murdered Emmitt Till and the Holocaust's Anne Frank.
   
   
   My next read will be Janet's book, "From Rage to Reason."

No comments about Abraham Lincoln: A Life.

5 comments about Theodore Roosevelt, An Autobiography (Dodo Press).

1. Sorry to be the pooper but this party is so extremely overrated it's sad. Teddy Roosevelt is a man's man and one of my favorite presidents but, at least in this instance, he's a pretty poor writer. I'm sorry to say that I just couldn't stomach the book it was so poorly written and I had to close it after choking down a little over half its contents. I know it must have been very painful for Teddy but he doesn't even mention his first wife, the love of his life, Alice. How can an autobiography be complete with valuable pieces of information missing?
   
   If you're looking for a good book try his biography written by Nathan Miller, "Theodore Roosevelt, A Life." Miller is a far better writer and seems to capture the Roosevelt that we all know and love. I have passed this book on to several friends and they have all come away with a heaping helpin' of respect for our 26th President.
   
   Again, I have to apologize to Teddy but there are just some folks who should not put pen to paper.



2. I've loved Theodore Roosevelt since my wonderful 11th-grade American History class 10 years ago. This great President was quite possibly one of the last true Renaissance men: politician yes, but scientist, conservationist, businessman, soldier, and, heavens yes! writer (he published, I have heard, nearly 50 books on many different themes). TR belongs to the end of an era when one could actually aspire to "doing it all," and he succeeded brilliantly.
   
   Teddy's _Autobiography_ is a fun, conversational read. The formatting for the Kindle is good, but not great, and a table of contents would be greatly appreciated.



3. Easily one of the best books ever written. Roosevelt is an exceptional writer who lived an amazing life. This book not only shares his tale, but shows you the ideals and ethics which drove him. Very inspiring as to the way in which we should all live our lives.



4. Witty, quirky, profound, lyrical--this is one of the great American memoirs. The 1999 Modern Library and National Review rankers of the 100 great nonfiction books of the 20th century missed the boat on this one.



5. If he had never entered the public square, Teddy Roosevelt would have created a noble legacy somewhere. He lived every moment of his life to the fullest extent and loved every second of it! He embodied the same ardent zest in the boxing ring, watching birds, being a cowboy, traveling the world, and leading America to its debut as a superpower. Yet, the one role that brought him the most satisfaction among the many diverse parts he joyously played was that of family man. Although he sedulously guard their privacy, enough references exist to reveal the power he derived from his family's love.

   The timelessness of ideals can be witnessed again and again in Roosevelt's detailed autobiography, and the parallels to modern day America as are striking as they are plentiful.

   In one instance of foresight Roosevelt lambastes so-called "party bosses"--those who manipulate a community, "a man who does not gain his power by open means but by secret means and usually by corrupt means." He points out that "in communities where there is poverty and ignorance, the conditions are ripe for the growth of a boss," and this type of reprobate will be "especially common in big cities (because the boss) fulfills toward the people of his district in rough and rowdy fashion the position of friend and protector." From these snippets of his dissertation, it's easy to wonder if somehow President Roosevelt boarded a time machine and met Al Sharpton. A more thorough description of the unordained reverend (and his many counterparts throughout history) cannot be found than this astute indictment.

   He expounds at some length on the president's scared privilege of dispensing clemency and stresses the there "nothing more necessary from the standpoint of good citizenship than the ability to steel one's heart in this matter of granting pardons." (How he must have spun in his grave at Clinton's going-out-of-business pardon sale.) Talking about the anguished imploring of family members (which caused him great anxiety) and the bumptious attempted influence by friends of celebrated criminals (which caused him great anger), Mr. Roosevelt realized that this presidential prerogative should only be used to advance the cause of justice. The remote possibility that pardoning could be abused (a reality that did not develop at the presidential level until 100 years after his term) made him think that life imprisonment was a poor substitute for the death penalty. In a related vain, he saw the insanity plea as a scurrilous cop out; "I have scant sympathy with the plea of insanity advanced to save a man from the consequences of crime, when unless that crime had been committed, it would have been impossible to commit him to an asylum for the insane."

   Spotlight-adoring Senator John McCain routinely invokes the memory of President Roosevelt, presumptiously implying that he is somehow the heir apparent to the early 1900's maverick. Examining Teddy Roosevelt's life shows that those similarities exist almost solely in the Arizona senator's mind. While Roosevelt's unwavering integrity made him unpopular, at times, with many in his own party, McCain fluctuating political postures seem to occur primarily to generate headlines. The former president justifiably felt tremendous self-respect--a byproduct of adhering to probity's rubrics. The Arizona senator self-serving pandering for popularity would be comical were it not so insulting that the philodox so willingly slanders a bona fide American icon to further his own career.

   Ironically, this reviewer read Roosevelt's disdainful view of abortion on January 22--the anniversary of the Supreme Court's infamous Roe vs. Wade decision. Discussing the crimes where even receiving a request to consider a pardon assaulted his sense of decency, he listed, "rape, or the circulation of indecent literature, ..."white slave" traffic (prostitution), or wife murder, or gross cruelty to women and children, or seduction and abandonment, or the action of some man in getting a girl whom he had seduced to commit an abortion." To President Roosevelt there was no other plausible reason why a woman would kill her unborn child. Some would call him sexist today, but the venom he felt (and the punishment he unhesitantly administered) to the men who committed these crimes should show the fallacy of such a ridiculous accusation.

   Topical comparisons can be found in his discussion on the importance of both corporations to maintain ethical practices and for the government to refrain from needless meddling in business matters. Futhermore he offers a reasoned dialectic on immigration, strongly supporting it but trenchantly articulating that establishing tight limits can be sensible rather than xenophobic.

   It is also refreshing to know that the irresponsible peaceniks vociferously denouncing America's full-scale war on terrorism have had their equally harebrained doppelgangers throughout history. To all of these possibly well intentioned pacifists, Teddy Roosevelt admonishes "the true preachers of peace...never hesitate to choose righteous war when it is the only alternative to unrighteous peace."

   Similarly regarding the current threat America faces, Mr. Roosevelt puts forth some comfort and assurance with an unforeseeable but apt reference to President Bush; "no man can lead a public career really worth leading, no man can act with rugged independence in serious crises, nor strike at great abuses, nor afford to make powerful and unscrupulous foes, if he is himself vulnerable in his private character." Every American should be thankful that the terrorists did not strike during the previous administration and also grateful the example of heroes like Theodore Roosevelt stands as everlasting inspiration to our nation's current and future leaders.

5 comments about The Senator and the Socialite: The True Story of America's First Black Dynasty.

1. _The Senator &c._ is the family history of Blanche Kelso Bruce, the first African-American to serve in the United States Senate, during Reconstruction. It's a fine story, and I'm glad to be learning what I am about the Reconstruction years and politics, opportunities and swindles. But the author doesn't exactly excite me. His research seems relatively sound, but his writing is not going to get him any prizes or true fans.



2. Excellent book. Very informative, happy to have obtain this great reading material. Book is in excellent condition, received it in a timely manner. I'm very happy with my purchase.



3. The Senator and the Socialite is less about a dynasty and more about a wealthy family degenerating into poverty. Blanche Bruce may have been a powerfull politician, but what power did he realy have? The White establishment could have thrown him away at any time. And his "wealth" came from renting farmland to poor Blacks, so in reality, he was a just another Southern plantation owner who happened to be Black. His children and grandchildren went to Harvard, Radcliff, and Exeter, but what for? Few companies would hire an African-American for a position of responsibility, unless it was to manage a business that catered to African-Americans (like the Dunbar Apartments). Booker T. Washington was right in his philosophy; if you have technical and industrial skills, you're more likely to get steady work. After all, I don't need the services of a Philosophy major, but there's 80 co-ops in my building who'd pay $200 a piece to have their sinks fixed!
   
   In the end, the children turn out to be disasters. Roscoe Bruce Jr, Clara Bruce Jr., and Buril, go to top colleges, do poorly, fail in business, get in trouble wth the law and disgrace themselves. Roscoe Sr. lets a racist pedophile abuse Black schoolgirls, costing him his job as head of the DC colored schools. Then his son mismanages a client's money and winds up in jail. His Daughter marries a Black actor who then decides to pass for White (as does his college friend John Syphax). All in all, the Bruce family were just lazy, spolied, rich brats who ruined themselves. I guess power and priviliege didn't jsut corrupt the Kennedys.
   
   But I have one question....what happened to all these characters later on? What happened to Barrington Guy/Sharma? When did he die? What happened in later years as he passed for White? What happened to Roscoe Jr.? What about his decendants? Where are they now? If only one of the Bruce's decendants turned up at the recent memorial to Blanch Bruce, does that mean they don't know about him, don't care, or are they keeping their ancestry hidden to this day?



4. Lawrence Otis Graham's "The Senator and the Socialite" is an important work. Graham does a wonderful job of detailing the great accomplishments of Black-Americans - much of which you would not ordinarily hear about and should be proud of. However, I am saddened to learn the descendants of such an important historical figure (Senator Blanche K. Bruce) are ashamed of their Black-American heritage and now live as white people.



5. I thought this was a slow starting book,but I ended up really liking the book. I learned so much. Well worth reading.

3 comments about The Truth about Leo Strauss: Political Philosophy and American Democracy.

1. Catherine and Michael Zuckert, in their Preface, describe this fine book as "accidental". It arose as a project from the conjunction of being asked to give a lecture on Strauss at the same time that there were a lot of mainstream media articles outlining the connections between Strauss and the foreign policy moves of the Bush administration.
   As a result of that conjunction, their book has a somewhat odd structure. In the introduction, they describe the attack on Strauss and trace it to the works of the Lyndon LaRouche organization and the writings of Shadia Drury. The subsequent five chapters are organized around various themes that serve to systematically answer Strauss' critics.
   The fact that the Zuckerts chose this format for countering those critics is my one problem with this book. I would much rather have had them write a straight forward exposition of the thought of their teacher.
   The Zuckerts give an excellent overview of Strauss' thought as organized around the differences between ancient and modern (post-Machiavelli) philosophy. They argue that Strauss came to see the history of philosophy as having four main periods: the pre-Socratic, Socratic or classical philosophy (this period includes Plato, Xenophon, Aristotle, Cicero, Farabi, Maimonides on up to that trouble maker Machiavelli), modern (starting with Machiavelli and Bacon) and postmodern (starting with Husserl and including people as diverse as Ayer, Derrida, Heidegger and Weber. Strauss in his essay, "The Three Waves of Modernity" subdivided the modern period into three "waves" or phases. The first wave of modernity ran from Machiavelli through Hobbes, Spinoza, Locke and Hume. These thinkers "reduced `the moral and political problem to a technical problem'" (68 of the Zs' book; they are quoting Natural Right and History). To these thinkers, the political problem was to be solved not by moral education and by relying on virtuous leaders but by institutions designed to channel and control mankind's base passions. The second wave was initiated by Rousseau (and including Marx and Hegel) who critiqued the first wave of thinkers on the basis of theories of history. The final wave of modernity was initiated by everybody's favorite philosophical bad boy, Nietzsche. This final wave culminates in the work of thinkers like Heidegger who banish all traces of the eternal in the name of a radical historicism.
   For Strauss, the crux of the matter came down to the moment that Machiavelli decided that the ancients (with their focus on virtue and the fostering of excellence) had given us a political philosophy that was inevitably utopian. The moderns, starting with Machiavelli focused on the concept of what was attainable (Strauss uses the term "actualizable").
   In order to do so, they "lowered their sights" to ground their philosophies on `man-as-he-is' not `man-as-he-could-be' (see pp. 66-71 for a good discussion of the turn to modernity). The Zuckerts also devote an excellent chapter to Strauss' concept of esoteric writing. Hopefully, this chapter should clear up the nonsense about Strauss himself being an esoteric writer. Anybody who believes that should actually read Persecution and the Art of Writing. The Zuckerts bring one of the main functions that the idea of esoteric writing plays in the thought of Strauss. They argue that it was one of the ways that Strauss tried to contradict "the alleged empirical evidence in favor of historicism...The so-called evidence of agreement between all previous thinkers and their times, or of the domination of thought by history, is an artifact of the conscious accommodation thinkers made to dominant opinion in their times" (123).
   I suspect that much of the paranoia surrounding this idea comes from what I see as one of the essential insights of Strauss. His early research into Spinoza and Hobbes led him to the belief that revealed religion had not been successfully overturned by the Enlightenment. Indeed, the actual result of the confrontation of Spinoza-Hobbes-Locke with revealed religion was to reveal the weakness of reason. And Strauss feels that revealed religion is equally impotent against reason. To make a long story somewhat shorter, these insights are seen by Strauss to impose certain responsibilities of moderation on political philosophers throughout history. Philosophers like Plato or Farabi felt the need to write esoterically largely to avoid persecution but also to behave with self-awareness and responsibility. They might be able to subject fournding mythologies to scathing critique but could they justify that if they could not honestly suggest alternatives? Of course, the moderns felt otherwise. In their sureness that they understood human nature or history or unfolding of being, the moderns saw their responsibility to be the spreading of truth.
   I could go on trying to summarize this book but I think you will be better served by reading it. I would like to make several comments on what I see to be some basic strengths and weaknesses of Strauss along with some comments on the Zuckerts presentation of Strauss.
   First, I have come to appreciate the way that Strauss presents his philosophy around clusters of problems rather than around solutions. Reason and revelation, the city and man, Athens and Jerusalem are well-known cruxes of Straussian thought. I would add the longing for eternity from a particular history as another way of seeing his themes.
   Strauss also strikes me as being very honest about the limitations of his answers. Somewhere he says that it is impossible to think long on these issues without leaning in favor of one of the traditional solutions. Strauss is clear as to which solutions he leans toward and to the provisional nature of his solutions.
   Which leads me to what I see as Strauss' weakness. He believes (assumes) that the highest in man is our longing for eternity. Strauss believes that our politics should be such as to encourage and support this longing. He also believes that only a minority will want to follow this path of philosophy. Thus our politics should be organized so as to support and encourage a minority in the highest pursuit of humanity: the philosophical quest for what are probably unresolvable conundrums. As such, Strauss takes his place with the ancients. All I am going to say on this issue is that it is at least arguable that as many historical atrocities took place in the name of such philosophies as have taken place in the name of modern philosophies. I am not at all sure that Strauss has taken seriously enough the critical side of modern philosophy.
   The Zuckerts would answer that Strauss was a supporter of liberal democratic regimes like our own and that his philosophy fits somewhat within the confines of a Madisonian politics. I think this is a good start as an answer but needs to be fleshed out. I tend to believe that Strauss would have been more comfortable as a High Federalist then any other type of politico in our history.
   I am also not sure about Strauss' methodolgy as a historian. I think that his own interpretation of Locke was off (although Thomas Pangle and Michael Zuckert have improved mightily on it). I would LOVE to see someone write a book on Esoteric Reading that listed what are thought to be esoteric techniques with examples. You could collect the techniques and examples from the writings of various Straussians.
   What I have no doubts about is the quality of the Zuckert's exposition. When reading this book, I could almost feel my brain lighting up. As a bonus to their writing on Strauss, they provide (I think this part is largely Catherine's work) very fair and lucid presentations of Nietzsche, Heidegger, Derrida and Schmidt. Then they (largely Michael) give a really nice exposition of the various fault lines within Strauss' students. All in all, this is outstanding expository writing.
   For anyone approaching Strauss for the first time, I would recommend the following reading list:
   Strauss' essay "What is Political Philosophy" (available both in the collection of the same name and in An Introduction to Political Philosophy).
   This book by the Zuckerts.
   Natural Right and History.
   The City and Man.
   Thomas Pangle's book, Leo Strauss: An Introduction to His Thought and Intellectual Legacy.
   After that you will know where you want to go on your own in your reading of Strauss.
   Leo Strauss is a thinker well worth wrestling with in forming your own thought. As someone firmly on the left side of politics, I believe that he is worthy of the company of other thinkers like Hannah Arendt, Ernst Cassirer and Theodore Adorno (by the way, I kept finding myself thinking about some of the similarities of the critique of modernity to be found in Strauss and in The Dialectic of Enlightenment). I don't believe that you will (or should) find any final answers in any of that list but they are all worthy opponents. Strauss was incredibly learned, thoughtful and very very careful. How can you not learn from such a thinker?



2. The Zuckert's appear to be enamored of their former teacher, which blinds them to see the obvious connection between Strauss and the most recent disasters in American foreign policy. They fail to really examine the primary question of whether Strauss himself wrote esoterically and blithely condemn even his most intellectually challenging critic, Shadia Drury, for causing such a fuss about their Guru. It would be curious to read a transript of Strauss' non-published comments during his many lectures to find out the real Truth About Leo Strauss.



3. The Zuckerts do a good job of giving a fairly comprehensive introduction to Strauss's complex and wide ranging thought. A notable and distinguishing feature of the Zuckerts' book in comparison with other recent works on Strauss is a historical analysis of the causes for the recent attention given to Strauss in some popular media outlets. The Zuckerts show, by means of actual quotation of the sources (a novel idea for some of the media which have made inaccurate pronouncements on Strauss's thought), that the flurry was spawned by a combination of LaRouchite propoganda and the bad and misleading scholarship of Shadia Drury. Also noteworthy for those a bit more familiar with Strauss is a history of the division of "Straussianism" into East coast and West coast Straussians (the Zuckerts describe themselves as "Midwest" Straussians) and a very thoughtful and penetrating analysis of Strauss's theory and use of esotericism. The book itself also stands as an outstanding example of Straussian scholarship by giving a first-hand illustration of Strauss's method of close reading. Along with the recent offerings of Pangle, Smith, Sorensen and Meier, the work shows just how inadequate and misleading the media treatment of Strauss has been.
   
   Table of Contents
   
   Introduction: Mr. Strauss Goes to Washington? 1
   
   Part I: Strauss
   
   Chapter One 27
   The Return to the Ancients: An Overview of the Straussian Project
   Strauss's Philosophical Project 30, Strauss's Departure From Heidegger and Nietzsche 32, Strauss's Analysis of the Contemporary Crisis 35, Strauss's Way Back to Ancient Political Philosophy 36, Strauss's Reading of the History of Philosophy 46, Political Philosophy and Politics 49
   
   Chapter Two 58
   Strauss--Modernity--America
   Proposition 1: America is Modern 58, Proposition 2: Modernity is Bad 64, Proposition 3: America is Good 74, Straussian Ambiguities 79
   
   Chapter Three 80
   Leo Strauss as a Postmodern Political Thinker
   The Problem of the Postmodern 81, Strauss's Postmodernism: After Nietzsche 83, Strauss's Postmodernism: After Heidegger 91, Derridean Postmodernism 102, Contrasting the Two Forms of Postmodernism 111
   
   Chapter Four 115
   The Man Who Gave Away the Secrets: On Esotericism
   How Shadia Drury Read Leo Strauss 116, On Esotericism and Noble Lies 120, Looking For Secrets in the All the Wrong Places 136
   
   Chapter Five 155
   Leo Strauss--Teacher of Evil?
   Strauss and the "Tyrannical Teaching" 158, The Thrasymachean Thesis 166, The Machiavellian Moment 177, Strauss and Schmitt 184
   
   Part II: Straussians
   
   Chapter Six 197
   The Emergence of the Straussian Study of America
   Walter Berns: The Virtuous Republic 202, Martin Diamond: Finding the Founding 209, Harry Jaffa: Aristotelianizing America 217
   
   Chapter Seven 228
   Straussian Geography
   East Coast 231, West Coast 239, Midwest 252
   
   Conclusion 261
   Notes 269
   Index 301

1 comments about J. Edgar Hoover: A Graphic Biography.

1. Rick Geary does it again with his graphic biography of an American icon, J. Edgar Hoover, director of the FBI. He uses his trademark illustrative style to chart the course of Hoover's life from birth to death, and all points in between. Hoover is now a controversial figure thanks to some scandalous, yet unproven rumors (mostly about his personal life), but Geary treats his subject matter fairly, and portrays Hoover in an unbiased fashion. This is a new venture from Geary's excellent "Treasury of Victorian Crime" series, and it does not disappoint. Anyone looking for a concise, yet thoroughly enjoyable biography of Hoover need look no further.

4 comments about Dirty Diplomacy: The Rough-and-Tumble Adventures of a Scotch-Drinking, Skirt-Chasing, Dictator-Busting and Thoroughly Unrepentant Ambassador Stuck on the Frontline of the War Against Terror.

1. I read Mr. Murray's memoir of his service in Uzbekistan with great interest because I lived in Uzbekistan at the same time he was there. Living and working in Uzbekistan meant living in a blinding fog of misinformation and government propaganda. After reading 'Dirty Diplomacy' I can understand now to what extent the Uzbek government, as well as my own American government, justified torture and corruption in the name of its 'war against terror'. Mr. Murray's book is also enlightening about the dealings of the diplomatic world. A very informative read.



2. Eye opening account how some tricky diplomacy occurs from a view from former British ambassador to Uzbekistan. The book reveals the social injustice that occurs in this part of the world. Very interesting read.



3. First a clarification: I read "Murder in Samarkand" the British version of this book. It is an excellent, engaging and fast read. Murray details in a way I have not seen before the inner workings and nitty gritty politics of diplomacy during the "war on terror". It is a tale that should be of great interest to American readers as a different perspective on a seemingly forgotten part of the war. The book is split roughly between three topic areas which are intertwined and reported on as a first person narrative. It moves quickly and jumps between what he is doing as the British ambassador in Uzbekistan especially on human rights issues, the internal politics of the British Foreign Service as they try to restrain then fire their gonzo swashbuckling ambassador, and his description of a boozy, skirt chasing and not very discrete personal life as ambassador. In the end it is a story of a man with a strong sense of justice who exhibits exceptional courage and uses his position to stand up against horrific human rights abuses. Murray clearly has a strong sense of honor and justice and the capacity for wit, style, and resourcefulness under pressure. It is also a tragicomedy of sorts as captured by the US book title and as evidenced by the fact that he lost his career but got the belly dancer.
   
   Uzbekistan was an important sideshow in the post 9/11 "war on terror" in Afghanistan and its story has not been well covered by US media. As part of the war on the Taliban, the US sought and got cooperation from the Uzbek government to establish a major air base within spitting distance of Afghanistan and made its deal with the devil in order to do so. The Brits, or at least Tony Blair's government, had little active role in that but did support the US. Murray, as the new ambassador, quickly fell out of step with the Blair government and the book is largely focused on the efforts of the now rogue ambassador to expose and limit the ghastly human rights abuses being carried out by the Uzbek government under the guise of supporting the war on terror. The government of Uzbekistan is kleptocracy and a police state throwback to Stalinist times. Craig Murray was one of a very few (and clearly the leading) western diplomats who accurately pointed out this inconvenient fact and its consequences. The toady US ambassadors at the time failed to take a stand and actively worked to undermine Murray. The book describes events occurring before the 2005 massacre of hundreds of protesters in Andejan which finally caused the US to back away from supporting the Ubek government.
   
   This is not a simple history or rant against a totalitarian regime. It is a first person documentary of issues that both the US and British governments were trying to sweep under the rug. Murray's decision to incorporate some mundane details of diplomatic life actually works very well by creating a context for what is going on and by making an otherwise very political topic much more than just a polemic. His single handed quixotic struggle to expose the harm caused by the US/Uzbek marriage of convenience and the clearly horrific abuses of human rights and democracy in the region would become wearisome and dry without the spice of booze, belly dancers, and clandestine meetings. The book at times seems to deal almost as much with his unambassadorial lifestyle as it does with politics but frankly it makes a much better read because of that. Murray's memory for detail is remarkable and appears to be quite accurate according to friends who attended some of the events he describes. Having worked myself in Tashkent during the time Murray is writing about I'd add that he really doesn't exaggerate in describing Uzbekistan or the difficult lives and fears of the average citizen.
   
   Murray could well have titled the book "Fear and Loathing in Tashkent" and tried to list Hunter Thompson as a coauthor. Hollywood would (?will) certainly not need to spice this story up for the big screen. I don't know if Murray is naturally as open as he comes across in the book or whether he has painted his self portrait (as described in the US title) simply because he thought it best to put everything on the table himself rather than let his enemies snipe at him over lifestyle issues. Murray obviously did take his job, as he defined it, very seriously and in the end did sacrifice his career rather than bend on his principles. Although he addresses some of his own foibles as part and parcel of his boozy adventures, this is not an autobiography. His marriage ends halfway through the book but he never lets on about any trouble at home (though it is hard to imagine any spouse putting up with his antics). We don't hear about the break up of his family other than noting that the final straw was his obsession and open courting of a beautiful belly dancer half his age. (I told you Hollywood would not need to spice this story up...too bad Jack Nicholson is too old to play the lead).
   
   The book is really a combination expose, polemic and titillating confession that just works as a great read. His writing is lucid, sharp and he never drones when making political points. One cannot help but admire his willingness to risk and destroy his diplomatic career in the service of a greater good. He was right and I suspect history will be kind to him. As best I can tell he is currently an itinerant writer living in London. One comes away from this book admiring him and hoping that he will bounce back into some human rights leadership role again. And, if he doesn't, I hope at least he finds peace and happiness with his belly dancer.



4. The book details the real-life story of Craig Murray, a successful British career diplomat that became a pawn in the Great Game. Assigned to become Ambassador to Uzbekistan, he took over a very small embassy with all the attendant issues (morale, support, etc.) He also very quickly became aware of horrific human rights abuses in Uzbekistan that have been substantiated by other NGOs like Human Rights Watch.
   
   His subsequent attempt to stand up against a regime that enjoyed boiling people alive, executing real or perceived enemies of the state in extra-judicial killings, etc. subsequently got Mr. Murray into trouble with the Blair administration since he was stirring the pot with one of their erstwhile allies in the "War on Terror". However, as Mr. Murray so eloquently lays out, it is precisely this type of tyrannical regime that leads to the rise of fundamentalist, extremist groups in the first place.
   
   Mr. Murray went to extraordinary lengths to represent British interests in Uzbekistan and traveled the whole nation to get to know it better. Along the way, he tried his best to encourage Democracy and Rule of Law, a novelty in Uzbekistan. Some of his more dangerous and coloful confrontations included standing up to various local government officials, thugs, etc. and are recounted in gripping detail. It is evident that Mr. Murray risked considerable harm to himself.
   
   Like most other diplomats in Uzbekistan, Mr. Murray could have simply looked the other way, just as the British government instructed him to when he reported human rights abuses and other issues with the regime that the Blair and Bush administrations wanted to cozy up to. That is not to say that he is a knight in shining armor, but he seems to be pretty honest about his personal flaws.
   
   When one of his internal Memos to the Foreign Office decrying the human rights abuses in Uzbekistan was leaked to the press, the British government took extraordinary steps to kick him out of the Foreign Service. With his departure, the British Foreign Service lost one of their more courageous and competent ambassadors, though perhaps he was a bit too honest and outspoken for the diplomatic club.
   
   This book was originally published under the title "Murder in Samarkand" in Britain. This version names more names regarding the folk working behind the scenes to kick Mr. Murray out of the Foreign Service, thanks to US freedom of speech laws. The British paperback version has more pictures, however. It's a very interesting read, and I highly recommend it.

1 comments about Inside the Statehouse: Lessons from the Speaker.

1. While Wright has clearly written a book that will appeal strictly to those passionate about learning the political process, his style and tone make for pleasant reading. His frank characterizations of his fellow legislators and the striking personalities he brings forth onto the page add laughter and authentic emotion to a subject matter often plagued by statistics and overly-verbose language. I recommend this book to anyone willing to walk into their Statehouse and wonder, "What's going on here? How does this really work? What's important? and What does it take to get here?"

5 comments about Blue Skies, No Fences: A Memoir of Childhood and Family.

1. I purchased two copies - one for myself and one for a friend who grew up in Blue Skies/No Fences country. We both have thoroughly enjoyed reading this account of the western way of life that helped define the values of this lovely lady and her husband. This book is a wonderful intimate peek into their lives and I thank her for sharing!



2. Blue Skies, No Fences: A Memoir of Childhood and Family captures the reminiscences of Lynne Cheney, the wife of Vice President Dick Cheney and blends them with true tales of American dreams. Offering a spotlight on the small Wyoming prairie town of Casper, Blue Skies, No Fences tells of exuberant young girls, boys who hunted and fished, and strong-willed family women. Of especial interest is the glimpse through the lens of time of a young daredevil of the Alcova Dam spillway/impromptu water slide who would grow up to be the man Lynne married. A handful of black-and-white photographs dot this nostalgic and loving tribute to Lynne's family, the havens of small town life, and the America of yesteryear.



3. While we all have our nostalgic memories of growing up in a small town in the 50's and 60's some of the realities were not so pleasant and certainly don't make me want to return to that time. Sure, life was great if you totally conformed to the community standards and never had a family problem. If Mrs. Cheney had been an adult with a lesbian daughter back then, they would have been the town's pariahs. Having a bastard child (the term single mother didn't exist back then) would have really put the icing on the cake. The other nasty items I recall in my childhood in a small town was that people knew there was child abuse, molestation, and wife-beating going on but nobody ever said (except gossip) or did anything about it. Molesters we told to "leave town", but never prosecuted. If people knew you were beating (or sexually abusing) your children or wife, they certainly gossiped about it but never did anything to help. You didn't have to worry about racism....you kept the black (or brown) people on their side of the tracks if you even had any minorities in your community. Life was not that great back then.



4. Since my husband and I (and my Mother) grew up in the same area this was a wonderful trip down memory lane. She offers many thoughtful insights both on "our times" then as well as now.



5. Maybe its the fact my families roots go back eight or more generations here in the west (Montana, Sierras of California) that I loved this book and any book that is about the richness and positive aspects of the rural wild west, where personal responsibility, self sufficiency, and common sense are the norm. Even in 2007. I also recommend Justice Sandra Day O'Connors book Lazy B which is about growing up in a cattle family here in the west. Both books show why so many of us call the west home. As well as why the west produces such strong smart women.
   
   Fact is, the west builds character, because of the harsh summers, harsh winters, the need to be prepared because one often goes without power and cannot simply run down the street to a plethora of restaurants or stores. It also as the book notes, builds strong communities. And friendships that last thru thick and thin for decades. People have a tendency to stay put or as the saying goes, to put down roots. And as the author notes, the west makes for secure, thinking people. Quiet people who don't always have to be the center of attention. People who don't easily get flustered when those who denounce them or make fun of them, show up.
   
   This is my favorite book by the author and is one I plan on giving as a gift to friends and family. Sure makes me happy I live here in the real west.

5 comments about Companero: The Life and Death of Che Guevara.

1. This year marks the 53rd anniversary of the Cuban July 26th movement, the 47th anniversary of the Cuban Revolution and the 39th anniversary of the execution of Ernesto `Che' Guevara by the Bolivian Army after the defeat of his guerilla forces and his capture in godforsaken rural Bolivia. Thus, it is fitting to review the biography of the life of a man who stood for my generation, the Generation of '68, and for later generations as an icon of revolutionary intransigence. This writer has read a few earlier biographies of Che, which a reading of the author's footnotes will guide the reader toward, but selected this biography for several reasons. First, it was published in 1997 when, after the demise of the Soviet Union and other Eastern European states, more sources became available and thus a more rounded picture could be found for the enduring legacy of Che. Second, the author has done an excellent job of interviewing Che's associates, political opponents, fellow revolutionaries, fellow ministry workers and flat- out agents of American imperialism to get their take on Che. In fact, the author has presented a range of hypothesizes, facts and just pure guesses by these interviewees for every controversial aspect of Che's life from his troubled childhood to the still immense speculation around the circumstances of his early death under fire and in struggle.
   
   Let us be clear about two things. First, this writer has defended the Cuban revolution since its inception; initially under a liberal democratic premise of the right of nations, especially applicable to small nations pressed up against the imperialist powers, to self-determination; later under the above-mentioned premise and also that it should be defended on socialist grounds, not my idea of socialism- the Bolshevik, 1917 kind- but socialism nevertheless. Secondly, my conception of revolutionary strategy and thus of world politics has always been far removed from Che's strategy, which emphasized military victory by guerilla forces in the countryside, rather than my position of mass action by the urban proletariat leading the rural masses. Those strategic differences will be discussed in another review in this space later concerning the fate of the Cuban Revolution. That said, despite the strategic political differences this militant can honor the memory of Che-exceptional revolutionary fighter.
   
   Who was Che and why has he remained an icon for militant youth to this day. Obviously a brief outline of his biography reveals a very appealing rebel. In fact the chronology of his life is sometime no militant today can duplicate. The circumstances have long past that would make such experiences possible. For openers, a wayward, carefree youth who gets serious about politics in 1950's Bolivia when all kinds of upheavals are occurring; a marginal figure associated with the left in Guatemala at the time of the CIA coup against the Arbenz government; adrift in Mexico where he has a fateful meeting with the Cuban revolutionary Fidel Castro and signs on; various adventures and misadventures in the mountains of Cuba where he rises to the leadership of the Rebel Army; the final triumphant march in Havana in 1959; assignment to various high positions in the revolutionary government including Minister of Industries; pro-Soviet then anti-Soviet advocate; advocate of and advisor to Third World revolutionary alliances against imperialism; disillusioned state bureaucrat; failed African liberation fighter in the Congo; and finally, failed Latin American liberation fighter in Bolivia.
   
   
   Youth needs, desires and deserves its heroes. In this sorry world today, unfortunately, there is an abysmal lack of role models available for those who want to storm heaven. More likely, today's models want to rain hell down on the rest of us. You have to take your heroes where you can get them. With the caveat mentioned about political differences above, Che makes a damn appealing icon for militants today.
   
   
   And one has many Che's to choice from. If you read this biography you get to choice a classic Latin American revolutionary romantic of the old 19th century European type; a wayward, carefree bohemian; an errant father, a competent bureaucrat; an exceptional military field commander; an exemplar of the `new man' under socialism; a sycophantic and cruel Stalinist hack; a utopian Stalinist visionary; a counterrevolutionary Trotskyist upsetting the unity of the `socialist' bloc ; a closet Trotskyist bend on permanent revolution; an internationalist fighter to the core; and, a hail fellow well met to name a few. As for this writer, I have in the past usually seen him as the Trotsky of the second half of the 20th century. Another larger than life figure, however, seemingly doomed to oblivion by their political visions. There are many similarities in their personal makeup and in their revolutionary intransigence that made this true. Upon reflection, however, this is a more than a little wrong. The real comparison should be with the great French 19th century revolutionary democratic barricade fighter Louis Blanqui. Comparison with that figure is no mean honor. For you conspiracy theorists out there- Che is dead! However, Che's memory as a revolutionary fighter for the oppressed masses of this world lives on. And it should.



2. This biography gives a detailed account of the life of Ernesto "Che" Guevara, from his childhood days in upper-middle class Argentina to his death during a completely hopeless attempt at guerrilla war in Bolivia.
   
   Che was a complex, and certainly a driven man. He would not let impossible odds or his sometimes poor health allow to stop him. Casteneda explains very well how both his character as well as his experiences in Latin America shaped him that way. The Mexican historian succeeds in giving an excellent account of both the historical events that Che was a part of and of Che's psychological states motivating him to act in these events. The question when and how Che was transformed from a talented son of the privileged class in Argentina who liked to travel to a fierce fighter for the liberation of the proletariat is pondered at length. Along the way, the reader learns a lot about Latin American history and politics. Che's relationship with the other Cuban revolutionaries, especially Fidel Castro, as far as it is accessible for an outsider, is elaborated on.
   
   This book is scholarly written but nevertheless very readable. Casteneda clearly has sympathies for the subject of his biography, but he is critical when it is warranted. Particularly, he points out his failures as an economist and as a military strategist: the efforts of exporting the revolution to the Congo and to Bolivia were ill conceived from the beginning, as the popular support in these places was not comparable to pre-revolutionary Cuba. Despite all these deficits, the spirit of solidarity with the world's poor and suppressed, that Che lived, impressed me as a reader and seemed to have impressed Casteneda. He finishes with a look at Che as a cultural icon, his face printed on countless T-shirts, and on the inspiration he provided for many. After reading the last page of this book one is tempted to shout whole-heartedly "Hasta la victoria siempre!"



3. This work by jorge G. Castañeda is one of the very best biographies you can find on Ernesto Guevara by many reasons:
   
   1. The historical chronology is accesible for everybody, but the good interpretation of those events is only at the reach of those who know the intricated aspects of diplomacy and polithics. Castañeda has done a great job understanding the polithical personalities of Guevara, Fidel, Kennedy, Kruschev and all the charachters of this saga. He signals both sides of each personality.
   2. This work is obsessively well documented. Castañeda has had access to many fundamental documents for this history. From American agencies, to British and Soviet services. He takes us not only to what history says but to why the builders of history wanted it to be that way. His amount of interviews is outstanding too, the revelations on the interviews match the information on the secret documents.
   3. Its difficult to confront a personality like Che Guevara without falling in his charm. Its difficult to be objective on an image that is on the chests of many generations. But Castañeda accomplishes that. He decidedly points the many mistakes that Guevara did directing the Central Bank, or the Industry Ministry. He focuses on the distance that Guevara took between idealism and dogma with economic fundamentals, this was a fatal mistake. Castañeda analyzes thoroughly how many of the guerrilla efforts of Guevara in other countries ended in failures and finally in death (Congo, Argentina, Bolivia, etc). But Castañeda also analyzes the outstanding kind of leadership that made of Guevara an icon. Fighting in the first line of fire, leading himself the voluntary work, accepting his mistakes in public (something unthinkable on Fidel, for example), building his leadership in the equity.
   4. Finally, Castañeda builds strong well fundamented theories on several controversial issues like the role of Fidel in the final days of Guevara in Bolivia. The strange lecture of the farewell letter that Guevara wrote to Fidel while Che was still fighting in Congo, a lecture that reduced the polithical possibilites of Guevara in Cuba and pushed him into the craziness: Bolivia. Good or bad will from Fidel? Castañeda discusses this very well.
   
   This is a biography that is fundamented in facts, documents and sharp interpretations. It gets very technical at certain points, like the handling of Cuban economics by Guevara.
   In Paco Ignacio Taibo II biography on Che Guevara for example, Taibo focuses in the anecdotic side of the icon, its clearly a bohemian work. Taibo doesnt lie, but there are susbtantial differences in these 2 works (Taibo and Castañeda) that were done at the same time and that even shared some documents. For example, at one very interesting event they deal with the subject in very different ways. In 1961, after Bahia de Cochinos there was a OEA related meeting in Uruguay. Motivated by brazilian diplomats, Guevara meets with Kennedy's rep Richard Goodwin. A secret meeting, non authorized by Fidel or JFK. Castañeda flies to the documents, looks for the interviews, interprets and builds theories. Taibo just turns the page arguing that Goodwin overrated the meeting and that Guevara didnt give much importance to it.
   By this way, you can contrast the focuses of both works which can be read as compliments. Taibo's work is very rich in anecdotes from the Sierra Maestra, or the funny things that happened to Guevara while changing the rifle for the desk in the Central Bank. You will love to read this side of Guevara. In the historical side, Taibo is accurate but not deep. His biggest achievement in historical deepness is the development of the Guevara's column since they left Sierra Maestra to the triumph in Santa Clara, this part outpowers Castañeda, but that the only thing.
   Castañeda's work left me deeply satisfied, answered many questions and gave me a new panorama on the subject. My 5 stars are fair.



4. Being the author a researcher and historian it is amazing the kind of writer he is. His dominion of literary sources is very evident in the ways of expression. Analogies, metaphors, references are abundant. I, personally liked a lot the ending of a chapter where he refers to War and Peace (a Russian novel turned later into a movie). Don't be afraid by this, the language I mention doesn't affect the understanding of the story. Regarding the Comandante, the remembrance of characters like Jesus Christ, Don Quixote, Nazarin or in these days Alexander comes to your mind readily. But, Women's or Gender Studies specialists take note: the "companeras" in the story can be shouted off, slapped in the face or disliked just because her features looked "somehow masculine". Rebember we are in the Sixties where the struggle for women's rights and feminist views were so important!



5. Seeing the recent movie "The Motorcycle Diaries" brought me to read this biography of Che Guevara. I highly recommend the film, and with reservations recommend Castaneda's biography of Che. At the time, I did little research into which Che biography would be "best" so I can not reference other Che biographies. I found this in many passages a tiring read, especially in the middle section, which covers Che's career as Cuba's lead economic bureaucrat.
   
   The book does not idealize Che although I suspect the author admires at least many of Che's humanitarian beliefs. Castendeda is excellent at pointing out a lot not to like about Che and his activities. It portrays Che as an enigma, as a very intuitive mind with an idealists somewhat naive view of human nature.
   
   Che wanted a better world for the underclass, and yet Che determines to do build this better world not by the practice of medicine, he was a doctor, but by insisting that only by violent revolution can it be achieved.
   
   Castandeda begins with a great review of Che's early life, his asthma (he fought being a constant prisoner to the constraints of the decease), and influence of his mother, and ends with a very interesting interpretation of why he has become a cultural icon. He follows Che on a path to what Castaneda calls his "Christ like" status in death. He places Che in context of the history of the times and within each setting, what Argentina was like when he grew up, Cuba when he fought by Castro's side, the later the "failures" in the Congo and Bolivia.
   
   I was rather surprised to find myself seeing Che as a character in Woody Allen's "Bananas" film as I read of Che's actual efforts to export revolution to the Congo and Bolivia. He seemed to assume a lot and his band of brothers in both the Congo and Bolivia was unbelievably small. For all Che's reading, apparent high IQ, he seems to have had no sense of what each of these country's underclass's and cultures wanted, needed, or would accept. He made the false assumption they would take up arms in unity. This Castaneda points out was not the case, and I kept seeing that the U.S. view of a monolithic communist conspiracy was indeed a myth as Che could not even pull together the China or Soviet factions to support his revolutionary efforts.
   
   I hate to claim a book is over detailed, because I did find many of the extensive footnotes of interest, and helpful. But this is really a scholarly work and as such lacks much in the way of entertaining writing. I'm glad I read the book, and recommend it to those interested in the subject.