5 comments about Hitler: 1936-1945 Nemesis.

1. The second volume of Kershaw's outstanding biography of Hitler covers the period from 1936 to his death. Kershaw does a superb job of integrating the biographical material per se with relevant narrative and analysis of German history over this period. Kershaw picks up and expands themes that emerged in volume one. Two in particular stand out. One is the overriding importance of Hitler's crude but powerful ideology. The point of Hitler's actions was the violent attainment of his social Darwinist goals; the elimination of European Jewry, the dominance of "inferior races" like the Slavic peoples of Eastern Europe, and German domination of western Eurasia. War was not just necessary to achieve these goals but an indispensable part of the process of establishing German supremacy. The necessity of violence was not merely an ideological preoccupation but something with deep emotional resonance for Hitler. This was a man who found his service on the Western Front a personally transforming and uplifting experience. Kershaw shows well how a large number of Hitler's zealous supporters shared these horrifying views and how an even larger number of Germans, including virtually all of the traditional elites of the German state, were either supportive of Hitler's goals or willing to look the other way as long as he was successful. By the time it became clear that Hitler was leading Germany to disaster, Hitler's power was so well established that any kind of organized resistance became almost impossible.
   
   Kershaw shows well how Hitler's bold repudiation of the Versailles restrictions and the rearmarment policies that expanded the German economy led to enormous personal popularity. Under the umbrella of Hitler's success and great prestige, the Nazis were able to subordinate all the major institutions of German life, perhaps save the churches, which did offer some limited resistance. At the same time, the Party erected a powerful alternative governing structure and some of Hitler's most able and ruthless subordinates developed the powerful security services that policed Germany. Hitler personally established complete dominance over the Wehrmacht, the only institution that could have resisted him successfully. Hitler's daring and ability to capitalize on weaknesses of his opponents, coupled with a good dose of luck led to unprecedented success.
   
   Another major theme articulated by Kershaw is the nature of the Nazi state. The essentially indolent and politically shrewd Hitler ruled primarily by setting himself above day to day government and setting the broader ideological goals for Germany. Hitler's unwillingness to participate in the mechanics of government and his willingness to countenance competing sectors of authority led to an anarchic state (termed polyocracy by some historians) that enhanced Hitler's power because only he had the ultimate authority to adjudicate among the competing authorities. For much of his rule, it also insulated him from public disfavor as unpopular policies were associated with lower ranking Party or government officials. This system, which Kershaw describes as "working towards the Fuhrer" led to competition among different subordinates and power centers for who could gain Hitler's favor by pursuing the ideological goals of the regime. The result was essentially a race to see who could be the more effective murderer of those unfortunate enough to be enemies, real or imagined, of the regime.



2. I finally got around to reading both volumes of Kershaw's biography after plowing through the Fest bio. Fest's is better, in my opinion, although the first Volume of Kershaw's isn't bad. The problem with Volume 2 is that it's redundant, with endless anecdotes about Hitler's tantrums and paranoia---way too much padding. It's more of an historical account of WW2, instead of a biography, unfortunately. As well, Kershaw's contempt for Hitler gets in the way of acknowledging any successes on Hitler's part; he's unable to give the devil his due. Volume 1 is probably worth it; Volume 2 doesn't add much. Some people like Alan Bullock's bio of Hitler, while others prefer John Toland's. I haven't read either one.



3. How could a racial crank with no education rule Germany so effectively for years? If he was an evil genius, Why did he then fail, stupidly leading it into a second war and eventual defeat? Kershaw's answer is the Nazi phrase, "working towards the Fuhrer". When Hitler stated his desires or plans, he didn't have to issue actual detailed commands: he could count on his lieutenants to implement his will in practice.
   
   Thus making Germany's foreign policy (in particular) a copy of his own paranoid, ruthless personality, Hitler won some early victories against opponents used to dealing with "gentlemen" leaders and countries. Also, "working towards the Fuhrer" obscured his personality--that of a crank--behind competent experts. But once he desired the impossible (conquering the USSR) or once his will became increasingly vague and contradictory (during the war), the result was total catastrophic, with Germany willingly starting a war it couldn't possibly win just because the Fuhrer wanted it, with the "bonus" of complete government chaos as numerous competing organizations interpreted Hitler's latest vague speech in a self-serving manner.
   
   Kershaw's history shows in meticulous detail just how "working towards the Fuhrer" worked in practice: how it allowed Hitler to make his personal paranoia and racial hatered Germany's officlal policy, with all that that implies--the holocaust included--which is the main point of writing a new biography of him in the first place. This thesis, while surely it can never be conclusively tested, is a far superior explanation of all that had occured in 1933-1945 than simplistic "Hitler was evil" explanations. Evil he certainly was, but, as Kershaw notes, that explains nothing: numerous evil cranks exist. Why did so many cultured and supposedly humane and sane Germans support him is the interesting question, which Kershaw answers very well.
   
   Highly recommended.



4. I have read many books about the Nazism, but until I read this one I didn't really feel I understood how a little snake like Adolf Hitler could get intelligent people to follow him. "Working toward the Fuhrer", as Kershaw puts it, became the goal, regardless of the consequences. Being "one of us", rather than "one of them", was the only goal. Facinating stuff, and scary, considering the relevance to our own time.



5. To be sure, military historians may be upset because Kershaw doesn't cover every little thing when it comes to the war, but this is the place to start and finish when it comes to Hitler from 1936-1945. The book is very well written and highly readable. If you want more info on the war, there are certainly other places to go, but if you want to know about Hitler, start with Kershaw's 1st volume and move on to this.

5 comments about "An Honorable Profession": A Tribute to Robert F. Kennedy.

1. This Book is a must read for all who Loved Kennedy.What a great man and Father.Its great reading.



2. It's amazing how a young man (THAT'S WHAT HE WAS WHEN HE DIED) who came from the most wealthiest of surroundings can relate to people from all fronts and walks of life, who could walk to the strongest and hardest of ghettos across this land amongst people less fortunate than he and with sincerity and fearlessness & yet still have an immediate connection with people on the other side of the fence (UPPER MIDDLE CLASS, WEALTHY) Robert Francis Kennedy was perhaps the last white man/ politician who the trust, respect, and effection of the entire human population (with the exception of BIll CLINTON) that's why you can a feel the dispair and sense of loss that people felt when he was murdered. "AN HONRABLE PROFESSION" is more than just a tribute to a man who was coming into his own but it is a tribute to the best and grestest sides of the Human Spirit,.



3. "An Honorable Profession" : A Tribute to Robert F. Kennedy, is one of the best memorial book of rfk, there are a lot of picture and some newspapers article.
   the texts are good and interesting, it is never boring.
   I recommend it to all rfk admires



4. There are beautiful poems, touching stories, and inspirational words in this book. I learned a lot about the good and decent man and his course. I sensed the feelings and spirits of so many Americans at that troubled time. There has never been a book of tributes after reading which I have been filled with so many hopes, though so sad at the same time... Robert F. Kennedy died in the course of the honorable profession, but he did not die in vain. His course made the profession an HONORABLE one, and made people believe that we can do better, and that we can also make our profession honorable.



5. This beautifully written biography of the late Senator Robert Kennedy does an excellent job of focusing on not only the man's career, but the issues and questions he was confronted with, such as civil rights, poverty and the disenfranchised citizens.

   Robert Kennedy had a very impressive resume -- father of 11, an undergraduate degree from Harvard, a law degree from University of Virginia, attorney, Attorney General, Senator and lastly, presidential candidate for the 1968 election.

   This was a man who apparently set high standards for himself throughout his life. The seventh of 9 children, he fought to prove himself among his siblings. As a boy, he strove to develop his physical prowess. One can smile at the young Bobby, then 4 trying to teach himself to swim despite his older brothers' chagrin. The same small boy who kept jumping in deep water would, 35 years later climb a previously unscaled mountain. Robert Kennedy, by then a senator suffered from acrophobia his entire life, yet pushed himself to climb that mountain. In March of 1965 he would table his fear and, with veteran mountain climbers Jim Whittaker and Barry Prather (both of whom had scaled Mt. Everest in 1963) ascend Mt. Kennedy in Canada. He climbed that mountain out of love for his slain brother, the late President. This particular event is inspirational; this man faced his biggest fear and acted out of love.

   As a boy, Robert Kennedy grappled with a mild form of dyslexia. Although by all accounts he learned to read within normal limits and was certainly an intelligent man, he learned early to combine his intelligence with diligence and very hard work. In adult life he would seek solace in classic literature; by 1964 he was able to quote long passages by authors such as Camus and Aeschylus by heart. The title of this book is a nod to the Senator's love of classic literature; "An Honorable Profession" is from "The 39 Steps" by Lord Tweedsmuir.

   Diligence appeared to be the core Robert Kennedy; the man who drilled himself in academic pursuits was the man who would also set high standards for himself throughout his professional/political career. In reading this work one cannot help drawing the conclusion that Robert Kennedy was at core a good man and a sincere man and a man who would stop at nothing to accomplish all tasks he had set for himself. His daughter Kerry Kennedy Cuomo's input provides some enlightening insights into the characteristics of this complex, often driven man.

   In reading this work as with many on Robert Kennedy, one can readily draw the conclusion that this man genuinely cared about people; his work with and for civil rights certainly attests to his deep level of empathy. He appeared to move and blend with equal ease among all people. Robert Kennedy could easily be described as the man for everybody. He was certainly a strong voice and considered by many to be the advocate for all.

   In 1968 Robert Kennedy was assassinated in Los Angeles, California. His loss leaves the questions open today of what he would have accomplished had he lived to win the 1968 election.

4 comments about Dawn Dusk or Night: A Year with Nicolas Sarkozy.

1. You will either love or hate Yasmina Reza's style of writing. It is spare, thought-provoking, and at times, painfully accurate. This is not a ponderous journalistic campaign diary; it is more like snapshots. Dawn Dusk or Night captures the complicated Nicolas Sarkozy in far fewer words, and in far more memorable ways, than the dozens of other books that have been written about him. He comes off as both visionary and vain, as human and detached. Although Carla Bruni is not a character in this book, it is easy to see why Sarkozy would have experienced a coup de foudre when they met. The only drawback to the English version is a somewhat clunky translation; some points undoubtedly were made better in French. But for students of French politics and writing alike, it is a must read.



2. Well-known French author and playright Yasmina Reza pitched an unusual idea to presidential candidate Nicolas Sarkozy in the Spring of 2007: to be able to follow up around, unrestricted, for a year and write about it. Much to her surprise, Sarkozy immediately said yes. This book is what came of that.
   
   "Dawn Dusk or Night: A Year with Nicolas Sarlozy" (190 pages) is a deeply personal, subjective, and quite unusual (as one might expect from someone like that) account of the year Reza spent with Sarkozy. It is a mostly unflattering view of Sarkozy. "Often he says, How you doing' Yasmina? But that means, how is he doing?" Or this, when she's talking on a campaign stop with someone else: "Infuriated by his nonexistence, he butts into the conversation to immediately change its direction." On politicians: "Forgetting oneself is not what they are living. They are forgetting others; they are, inevitably, self-obsessed". After Sarkozy wins the election and invites Reza over the the Elysee, she tells Sarkozy "I wanted to ask you something. Yes? I wanted to grant me something what you never have. What? A real conversation."
   
   This book caused a huge stir when it came out in France last Fall, for obvious reasons. I'm not sure what Sarkozy was thinking when he agreed to the author's pitch, as it was pretty obvious what the outcome would be. I really enjoyed this book, even if it is, at times, a quirky read.



3. What a brilliant idea this was! Take Yasmina Reza (`Art'), the best-known playwright in France today, and have her shadow the country's rising political star, Nicolas Sarkozy, in his bid -ultimately successful--for the presidency. The result is not political reporting but a stunningly brilliant portrait of a type of man, homo politicus, as represented by one of its most appealing exemplars. Sarkozy is perpetually in motion, reinventing himself against the backdrop of hangers on and electorate. From their first meeting, she notes Sarkozy's impatience, his thirst for praise (`still waiting, like a child, for the umpteenth approval'). "I feel like I'm watching a little boy," she writes. He can't stand being alone, he sabotages conversations that don't involve him, shuns solitude. He comes alive around people, needs audiences to think and live. Reza's glittering prose show us glimpses of a man whose goal seems to be to outrun his own image in the mirror but who also happens to be one of the most important political figures of our age. Compulsively readable, this book deserves the widest audience. Sarkozy is charming, relentlessly ambitious, unable to sit still, and totally self-absorbed, a man in search of a mirror. But when he finds one, he finds there's still something missing.



4. This book was impossible to read. I think she wrote it as a play not a book. I couldn't finish it.

5 comments about Thomas Jefferson: (The American Presidents Series).

1. In his biography of Thomas Jefferson, titled "American Sphinx," Joseph Ellis tellingly says at one point (Page xvii): "As I have found him, there really is a core of convictions and apprehensions at his center. Although he was endlessly elusive and extraordinarily adroit at covering his tracks, there were bedrock Jeffersonian values that determined the shape of the political vision he projected so successfully onto his world. . . ."
   
   Joyce Appleby, author of this brief volume in The American Presidents series, attempts to capture that elusiveness. As noted many times, this series provides brief, readable, and often (but not always) insightful analyses--but at the cost of depth. For many, that tradeoff is well worth it, and I would rather someone read a brief biography and think a bit about the subject rather than not read anything at all about the subjects. Appleby begins by noting that Jefferson (Page 1) ". . .instilled the nation with his liberal convictions," the two most important, in the author's eyes, being participatory politics and limited government. These were clearly central aspects of Jefferson's political philosophy. However, his enmity toward a hierarchical, ordered society dominated by an elite is undermined by his ambivalent views on, for example, slavery. Jefferson, as a person, is someone who often manifest conflicting elements to his thinking.
   
   This book, to its credit, gives credit to Jefferson for his accomplishments, whether as ambassador to France, his role in authoring the Declaration of Independence, his advocacy for the political equality of white males--including those who were not persons of means. The work also juxtaposes those with his ambivalence about slavery (at one point, he fears that the country will have to suffer greatly for the "peculiar institution" and, at another point, he cannot conceive blacks and whites living together in amity and equality) and about gender (he could not conceive women as political equals, although he could treat individual women, such as daughters and Abigail Adams, with considerable respect). The book also straightforwardly addresses the issue of his relationship with one of his slaves, Sally Hemings. It also discusses his somewhat problematic behavior while serving in Washington's Cabinet, as he fought with Alexander Hamilton and authorized nasty newspaper attacks on the Administration.
   
   As President, he presided over some great moments--the Louisiana Purchase, the taking seriously of political freedoms, the advocacy of political rights for the less well born, the opening of the West, the exploration of Lewis and Clark, the successful prosecution of the war against the Barbary pirates. On the other side, his cold approach toward native Americans, his failed economic policies directed against the French and British as the United States became a pawn in their struggle for supremacy, his inability to address the slavery issue (although he pushed legislation to end the slave trade at the earliest time possible under the Constitution--introducing yet again his ambivalences).
   
   So, this is a useful short biography laying out this elusive character. Appleby meets, I think, the challenge of presenting this complex person in a slender volume. Worth looking at. . . .



2. In her study for the American Presidents series, historian Joyce Appleby observes (p.132) that "America's most pressing history assignment is coming to terms with Thomas Jefferson." Indeed the variety of reviews on this site, and their varying assessments of Jefferson, themselves bear witness to the difficulties of understanding our third president. Appelby has written a nuanced, brief study of Jefferson's presidency with all its complexities and contradictions. She is more sympathetic to Jefferson than are many other scholars. Yet, she also lets the reader see Jefferson's flaws and inconsistencies. Her book gives the reader new to Jefferson a good starting point for understanding not only Jefferson's presidency but also some lasting issues in American political thought.
   
   Jefferson wished to be remembered as the author of the Declaration of Independence and of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom and as the Father of the University of Virginia. Appleby of necessity treads lightly on these and many other significant accomplishments to focus on Jefferson's fundamental ideas and on his presidency.
   
   For Appleby, Jefferson was the founder of participatory democracy. While the other Founders, including Washington, Adams, and Hamilton tended towards an elitist concept of government in which the educated and well-born exercised disinterested political control, Jefferson sought a much broader base for political power and activity. Jefferson wanted to break down distinctions based on wealth or background for political participation. In practice, as Appelby points out, Jefferson expanded the scope of political participation to include all white males. The converse is that he continued to exclude African Americans, Native Americans, and women. But he still was far more inclusive than his contemporaries. And Jefferson laid the foundation, in his "self-evident" truth that "All men are created equal" for his successors over many years to see his own shortcomings and to pass beyond them.
   
   On a broader level, Appleby insightfully describes Jefferson as the founder of one of the two main strains of American political thought.Jefferson was an enlightenment thinker who believed that people were essentially good and that they possessed the ability to understand and solve the issues confronting them. This is a key belief of most forms of political liberalism. Jefferson's opponents, exemplified by the Federalists and particularly by John Adams, evidenced a distrust of the human heart and an awareness of the mind's capacity for deception. They were inclined to put checks on the multitudes. Adams, as Jefferson's rival, has become the founding figure of the difficult and elusive part of American thought called conservatism. Jefferson was in his opposition to Washington and Adams and, in spite of himself, the founder of two-party politics in the United States.
   
   Appelby begins her account of Jefferson's presidency with the election of 1800, one of the closest and least understood in our history. Jefferson assumed the presidency with the goal of limiting government and increasing the autonomy of the individual. Appleby describes Jefferson's astounding Louisiana Purchase, which greatly increased presidential power, as intended to promote Jeffersonian goals by opening up land to settlement by small, independent yeoman farmers.Appleby discusses well the important constitutional changes that were wrought during Jefferson's time, some by Jefferson himself -- as in the Louisiana Purchase -- and some by his opponent, Chief Justice John Marshall.
   
   Jefferson's second term was plagued by his former Vice-president, Aaron Burr, who was tried for treason for attempting to lead a secession movement in the West. The nature of Burr's activities have always been obscure, but Jefferson actively sought his conviction. Burr was acquitted after a trial in which Chief Justice Marshall presided.
   
   The closing years of Jefferson's presidency saw a great increase in tension between the United States and both Great Britain and France as the two European powers refused to respect American neutrality on the high seas. Late in his administration, Jefferson secured the enactment of an Embargo which resulted in great domestic divisiveness and near economic ruin. The Embargo would soon lead under President Madison to the War of 1812.
   
   Appleby gives a brief account of Jefferson's life following his presidency, including the important correspondence he held with his former rival and friend, John Adams. Jefferson and Adams effected a reconciliation in the correspondence of their old age even though their philosophical differences remained. The reconciliation of these two Founders suggests that both Adams's conservatism and Jefferson's liberalism have much to contribute, in their insights and tensions, to a vibrant, thriving United States. Appleby's own sympathies in her fine thougtful study are clearly with Jefferson and with the liberal tradition.
   
   Robin Friedman



3. First, let's begin with the premise that the collaberation of, at one time, in one relative place, and with (seemingly) one goal, those who have come to be collectively known as the Founding Fathers was, by any accounts, an extraordinary period in the history of humanity. A Dream Team, if you will.
   
   Second, let's remind ourselves that none of these men were devoid of their flaws. Many, in retrospect, carried their warts and blemishes with a sense of pride, if not prominence.
   
   While it is inevitable, and not inappropriate to find an interest in these founders and their various achievements so timely and exciting centuries after they did what they did, it is also inevitable that the lines of truth and accuracy have faded in the interim, and an honest interpretation of events between 1750 and 1820 requires of the interpretor an open mind, and a lack of preconceived notions.
   
   Ms. Appleby has not satisfied that requirement in her Jefferson interpretation.
   
   Appleby admits in the opening paragraphs to be an admirer, and continues to clarify that point throughout the book. She sets Jefferson apart from the other 'founders,' who are minimized, if not dismissed as having provided less,if any substance to the drive for that ultimate goal. Indeed, Appleby seems to be saying that the goals of the various gentlemen involved were so varied as to be in direct opposition to each other.
   
   Moreover, Appleby outrightly idolizes Jefferson. Her platitudes do not, however, shine any more light on the man, who certainly qualifies as one of the more secretive/introspective of the bunch. Instead, one is left the option of accepting Jefferson as a Moses-like character, or of choosing to look elsewhere for a more in depth assessment of this certainly great man.
   
   Other reviewers have noted her attention to Jefferson's issues with slavery, with women, with indians. These are discussed, but rather than in a way that would try to find a root cause, or to compare them with other frailties in his character, the effort seems to be to offer them as some offset to the bulk of the material, which is close to hero worship.
   
   There is enough information about Jefferson, even considering the depths of his persona, to identify some (but certainly not all) of the demons that tormented the man. And also enough information to know that Jefferson was not immune to crossing the lines of decorum that separate the common man from the political climber. But you wont find that discussion here.
   
   In the end, we have yet another portrait of this man, who deserves his place in the pantheon, but ther is no flesh, no blood, no heart. Just canvas.



4. Joyce Appleby's concise "Thomas Jefferson" is a well-written book mainly about Thomas Jefferson's presidency. Appleby understands Jefferson's place in history and gets the story right. I also recommend R.B. Bernstein's concise "Thomas Jefferson," which covers Jefferson's entire life better. But for a book on the presidency of Thomas Jefferson, Appleby's book is a fine choice.



5. Many may believe that political equality has existed in the United States since the very founding. Even ignoring the disenfranchisement of women and the subjugation of twenty percent of the population to slavery, that is a questionable belief. Many elites in the colonies, including many directly connected with the revolution, wanted to roll back any unleashed democratic impulses. The landed gentry, lawyers, the educated, merchants and creditors, and the like assumed that their superiority entitled them to control society's institutions including government. In their view, it was in the best interests of all if the unlearned population deferred to the better element of society. That was Thomas Jefferson's assessment of the political culture in the early years of the US.
   
   According to the author, one of Jefferson's main achievements was countering this presumption of elite control of society and politics. Though an aristocrat and intellectual, Jefferson developed a respect for the political rights and participation of the average citizen. Jefferson along with democratic political clubs infused with admiration for the French Revolution and a vigorous oppositional press formed an unofficial political party, the Republicans, to oppose the entrenched elites, known as the Federalists. The passage of the Sedition Act under Adams confirmed the Federalist fears and disdain for true political freedom.
   
   Jefferson dispensed with all symbols of aristocratic pretension when assuming the Presidency. Under Washington and Adams, the protocols of the European courts were rigorously followed. Jefferson understood that the style of his Presidency made a statement about whom or what was truly important.
   
   Jefferson was also very interested in the expansion of the US into the West beyond the Appalachian Mountains. He saw the West as a tremendous opportunity for hard-working average Americans, and not the province of elite speculators. The Louisana Purchase and the Lewis and Clark expedition were bold and promising acts.
   
   The Jefferson Presidency had to contend with the wounded Federalists, including their personal attacks concerning Jefferson's religion and character. In addition, the French-English conflict escalated in his second term and resulted in wholesale predations on American commercial ships. The Embargo Act, enacted to curtail opportunities for conflict, was highly unpopular and unsuccessful.
   
   The author does discuss the contradictions of Jefferson. Jefferson extolled the essential equality of all men and promoted widespread political participation. Yet he could not extend that concept fully to Negroes or to native Indians. It is a troublesome inconsistency, but the huge impact that Jefferson had on the direction that the political culture took in the US cannot be overlooked. It is inaccurate to suggest that the author excoriates Jefferson through a political correctness lens.
   
   The book is not an exhaustive study of Jefferson; it is not supposed to be. Jefferson does deserve to be rated as a president just behind FDR or Lincoln. His Presidency represents a decided shift from an elitist political culture to one far more democratic, hardly an insignificant development in a democracy. The author makes that point quite well.

4 comments about The Kennedys: America's Emerald Kings: A Five-Generation History of the Ultimate Irish-Catholic Family.

1. ...the author began to write about the latter-day Kennedys: old Ted Kennedy, his nephews, his nieces. Then, it seems all the careful research and non-biased authorship went out the window. I can only suppose, maybe because Ted is still alive and could have played hardball with the materials granted to the author, the author decides to give him a pass. How can you write a book about the Kennedy family and not discuss Chappaquidick's ramifications?
   
   But until that point, the book is excellent; plenty of actual letters from Rose, Joe, young Joe, Kathleen, Jack et al., are quoted (letters which reveal so much more of their feelings and their characters, rather than just an author stating an opinion about them -- this is great). The trauma that Jacqueline Kennedy endured after the assassination is finally explored in detail. Really, this part of the book is stunning, particularly in regard to what the Kennedys' faith meant to them (particularly Rose) and how it was practiced -- UNTIL the chapters regarding Teddy and the latter-day Kennedys. Then, I get the distinct feeling that the author is indicating it's OK that most of the latter-day members of the family have become the new "pick & choose" Catholics of today -- the type of so-called believers that want to manipulate and practice this faith THEIR way, not their Church's, way. In other words, if a Catholic belief doesn't suit their life choice, they know to make a slick excuse about the choices they make or the political positions they assume. For instance, Ted becomes pro-choice since about 1972 (but never before) --ironically, just when women really started speaking out and became a political force on this issue, and just about the time of Roe v. Wade. Was it really a belief in women's rights that changed him, or was it just a convenient time to sway the way the political wind was blowing?
   
   I can't quarrel with the quality of the writing, or the research, so this book deserves 3 solid stars. Maybe some of my disappointment in the book is with the current Kennedy family itself (and, in respect to the book, the author's failure to point out how the family has lost its way). It is disappointing, seeing the younger generation's campaigns, marriages and even some lives going bust, due to drugs, embarrassing scandals & so forth; seeing how the Catholic values have been degraded, when compared to the stringent yet strong inner core that Rose Kennedy, Eunice, and I think even JFK (despite all his affairs), had.
   
   Most of the younger generation (and Ted, too) seem to lack this core of strength and determination to achieve things not just for their own good but for the good of others, which I believe, for the most part, came from their Catholic faith. The author does a great job showing what the old faith as practiced by the Kennedys meant to them and how it informed the older generation's lives, but fails to point out that its loss and/or its current application as a sort of "only at my convenience" religion has left its mark on the current generation.



2. Professor Maier has documented a side of the Kennedys that many readers are quite unfamiliar with: their ongoing commitment to their religious heritage. As Maier writes, Americans are more comfortable with Kennedy's as power operators and libertines. The essential Catholic nature of these men and women, however, either bores us or makes us uncomfortable. Some liberals don't appreciate the Kennedys as Catholics because they dislike Catholicism itself. Many conservatives deny that the Kennedy's are Catholic because, for such critics, morality means sexual prudery. Maier is able to strike the proper balance in portraying Joseph, Sr., John F. Kennedy and Edward as committed, believing albeit flawed Catholics. Robert is correctly drawn as the most conventionally devout of the Kennedy males. This should not be a revelation to readers, but in a sense, it is. And the author makes one more very important and routinely ignored point: It is very significant that Americans have been unwilling to nominate (let alone elect) a Roman Catholic to the Presidency since John F. Kennedy, over 40 years ago. This work ranks as one of the best, most carefully-documented and readable of the hundreds of books published about this family.



3. While this is an excellent history of the Kennedy family, tracing its roots like few histories have done, this book is far more. The author neither shows a bias to adore this large, well-known clan nor does he show a disdain for them. He simply tells the story as it is and leaves the reader to his own conclusions.

   The main thrust of the book is the family's dealings with the Catholic church. We learn what many have suspected, that the Kennedy family paid off the churches leaders, providing them with much personal and institutional wealth, for the benefit of various Kennedy family members --- for special treatment and services.

   The book covers just about all family members who were helped by the Catholic hierarchy but, of course, it spends more time on JFK who benefited from payments made by his father on his behalf. But it goes on to the more recent affairs including marriage annulments of lesser family members.

   While this clan is of much less importance than it once was --- indeed it is of little importance --- this history and the new revelations add a good deal of knowledge for the student of politics and religion and leaves us with a distaste and distrust of both.

   Susanna K. Hutcheson
   Owner & Executive Copy Director
   Powerwriting.com LLC




4. this new kennedy's book is very great.
   there are a lot of picture and the texts are very complete.
   you can learn a lot about the kennedys.
   it's never boring.
   So read it!

5 comments about Just Call Me Mike: A Journey to Actor and Activist.

1. This is a heartfelt, but important book. Mike Farrell discusses human rights concerns openly and clearly and in historical context. I must read for anyone concerned about the future for America.



2. This book is terrible. Mike Farrel blabs on about nothing important and his thoughts are random and unorganized. There is no structure to the book and nothing to take from it. The book reads like a kid in high school wrote it.



3. Although the trajectory of Mike Farrell's life might not be the stuff of timeless autobiography, it's interesting, educational, and primed me for hearing him at a speaker's event in the near future. There's some actor's insight here, but he doesn't dwell on that part of his life (M*A*S*H for him was a chance ride into lifelong celebrity). His family life is the typical married young and then had kids, "We weren't on the same page" divorce, and successful remarriage with children becoming high achievers. And his world travels to observe and testify of various wars and other political and social disasters turns out to be mostly by referral and invitation, not self-appointment. I can't say I disagree with him about anything. Mike Farrell has come far, he appreciates what he's been given, and earned, and his autobiography is a worthwhile pass-along book.



4. I am a conservative, over 20 years served, active duty US Marine, currently deployed to Baghdad Iraq. I am guessing some readers would wonder why I read the book. I know Mr Farrell is a little to the left, so what. I have enjoyed hearing his opinions on various political shows over the years so that I can hear what the left has to say. He has always been polite and respectful to all opinions, so I gave it a shot. I was not dissapointed, he tells a great story of how he became who he is, to include his time in the US Marines. I almost laugh at the thought of him serving, but I believe from reading this book Mr Farrell loves his country and is a patriot, just with differing opinions from my own and I salute his service to our country. You will read some about MASH, his childhood and how he became a activist. Be warned, he is harsh to conservatives, which I did not agree with, but I respect his right to speak out, and speak out he does. Maybe a little too much conservatie bashing, he could have got his point across with less, but overall a good read, just have a open mind, and if you are looking for a book only about MASH, this is not it. Semper Fi Mr Farrell, I enjoyed your book.



5. This personal account of the life of a personality known to millions exceeded my expectations. Although an autobiography, it goes beyond the typical remembrances of a life lived outside of and in the spotlight, pushing past the usual, and manages to inspire, and to make you think.
   Mike Farrell's integrity and commitment to humanity, to making the world a better place, are not just conveyed throughout the chapters of this book in his own words, but have been demonstrated in perpetuity by his selfless actions on behalf of mankind. This book is missing an important word in the subtitle- It should have been called "Just Call Me Mike- The Journey From Actor to Activist to TEACHER." An educator, he is indeed.
   M. A. Moore
   The Family Press

3 comments about Watergate: The Presidential Scandal That Shook America.

1. Read this for graduate American history course.
   Keith Olson's book "Watergate" describes the events that led up to the scandal that shook the American public like nothing it had ever experienced. When the public elects officials into office they do not anticipate such scandalous happenings as the one that tore our nation apart. The Watergate scandal left the American population feeling distrustful and pessimistic at one of the most vulnerable times in this nation's history. Everyone wondered how the nation would recover from something as tragic and polarizing as Watergate.
   
   Nixon detested the media. He sought to control everything the press had to report about him and his administration. Nixon's turmoil began when he insisted that the Pentagon Papers stay out of the press. Despite his efforts, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment took precedence over what Nixon maintained was a compromise of national security. While the Pentagon Papers tainted some officials' reputations, there is no evidence to suggest the papers were a threat to national security (18).
   
   Nixon's grave concern regarding re-election in 1972 was driven by three characteristics: his concern about public image, his desire for knowledge about the plans and activities of his opponents, and his heavy reliance on public opinion polls in order to gauge public reactions and to guide future decisions (23). He relied heavily on his White House staff to obtain the information he thought necessary to attain his goal of being re-elected.
   
   Although Nixon's aides took great initiative in attempting to thwart any chance of the Democratic Party winning the election, they crossed the fine line which separates what is acceptable and what is unacceptable. The Plumbers, who were initially formed to stop unauthorized leaks of government information, overstepped their bounds which led to the Watergate scandal (18).
   
   Nixon was overwhelmingly reelected in 1972. This pushed Watergate out of the mind of the public. However, in January the defendants were on trial. Judge Sirica concluded that the defendants of the Watergate break in were withholding knowledge. He threatened stiff penalties if they did not cooperate. Resignations of Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Dean and the acting director of the FBI were the result of James McCord (chief security for CREEP)disclosing information. (CREEP) was the Committee to Re-elect the President.) McCord testified against dean to receive a lesser sentence. Dean turned over names and as a result wanted immunity and continued to give information.
   
   The Washington Post was the major paper that covered Watergate. Watergate played no role in the 1972 elections. People did not yet equate Nixon to Watergate. The journalists reported that CREEPfunds helped pay for Waterate.
   
   The Watergate break-in was initiated by the Plumbers with G. Gordon Liddy, who had been hired by John Mitchell, at the helm. Although Nixon was unaware of the events at the time they occurred, he did learn of the burglary shortly thereafter. His reluctance to handle the scandal at the beginning resulted in the beginning of the end. President Nixon was so driven by secrecy that it clouded his judgment of right and wrong. When the major participants, John D. Ehrlichman, H. R. Haldeman, John Mitchell, Charles Colson, Robert C. Mardian, and Gordon C. Strachan, had to share information with President Nixon he should have immediately done the right thing.
   
   Instead, the cover-up began. President Nixon was in complete denial. He managed to encumber the Watergate investigation for two years with his refusal to cooperate and turn over the necessary information. By hindering the process, President Nixon only hurt the nation by not allowing the scandal to come to a close. Furthermore, the American population saw the President behave in such a manner which tarnished the image of the highest position in the nation.
   
   Due to President Nixon's poor judgment, eighteen of his aides went to prison and he narrowly avoided impeachment. His reliance on advisors and his own poor judgment cost him the presidency. Had he cooperated initially with the judicial system the ramifications and embarrassment would have not been as damaging. The fact that President Nixon never believed he did anything wrong crippled the government. The American people lost faith in the government because no one would have suspected the nation to be susceptible to such a crime. Olson's interpretation appears unbiased and gives a complete account of the events that led to President Nixon's downfall. His inclusion of what the media believed enhanced the book by explaining to the reader what the public opinion was in regards to the Watergate scandal. He continued to include the media's reaction to the events as they progressed, which showed how the public's reaction changed as the scandal continued. I found this to be an important aspect of the book because it provides the reader with a complete view of every angle of the Watergate scandal and demonstrates how much it affected the nation.
   
   As a graduate student in philosophy and history, I recommended this book for anyone interested in American history, and Watergate history.



2. As someone who has read several books on Watergate, I have to ask: why was this published? It contains no new research, no new interviews, no revelations. The entire book is cobbled together from other books, which means that far too many important points and details are glossed over or ignored. What's worse is Olson's prose, so flat and lackluster that it reads like a description of a Senate Appropriations Bill, rather than as the story of the greatest constitutional crisis of the 20th century. Don't be fooled by the inexplicable raves on the cover-this is barely adequate at best. For a thorough and compelling read on Nixon's downfall, read Fred Emery's Watergate instead.



3. Taut summary account of the Watergate tale. This era remains in memory as a series of journalistic fragments and television images half-remembered. It is useful to redo the tape to assemble a fully coherent image and this work is an excellent short history and analysis, from the Plumbers to Deep Throat to nervous breakdown and resignation, exeunt omnes, quite a few, save but one, with no get out of jail free card. The book brings in a theme by way of diagnosis in terms of the corrosive effect of the 'imperial presidency' and the covert perversions of 'presidential will' proceeding in Cold War prerogative as progressive Machiavellian disease to the Nixonesque fatal dosage. As a mere peon here not fooled for once, one is struck by the curious impudence of incompetent villainy, and the strange fortune that a picture of rank dishonesty starting as routine business as usual as if this were all presumed is what finally led to exposure. One gets the bad feeling the other smiling faces in the photo ops are less incompetent, no proof of virtue.

5 comments about Stories in His Own Hand: The Everyday Wisdom of Ronald Reagan.

1. This is a companion book to Reagan, In His Own Hand: The Writings of Ronald Reagan that Reveal His Revolutionary Vision for America, both of which are transcriptions of Reagan's radio addressees delivered during his interregnum from governor to president. This slim tome, however, focuses more on Reagan's philosophical and spiritual side, as opposed to policy.
   
   Indeed, it is more of a devotional book than anything else. You feel Reagan's faith in God, and his love for the down-to-earth people that make America great.
   
   There are so many heartwarming stories. One of my favorites is his retelling of The Little Red Hen, which begins on page 86. On the surface, it has a new twist on an old fable. But once you think about the underlying tales, and the punch-line, you see this story ranks with Animal Farm: Centennial Edition and Atlas Shrugged.
   
   Regan's America is our America. In this selection, Reagan gently reminds us who we we are, and our power as individuals to do good. Reagan was for small government simply because he believed that everyday people were so big.



2. For the most part, this little book consists of brief, non-political, stories written by Ronald Reagan for delivery on his five minute radio program in the 1970's. Some are his own. Others are based on stories which he had read or heard and which apparently touched him in some way and which he felt were worthy of repeating to a broader audience. My expectations weren't very high when I began reading the book; probably because there have just been too many such books compiled in recent years. If I'd noticed that the book was produced by the same people who earlier produced "Reagan, In His Own Hand..." they wouldn't have been quite so low.
   
   In any case, this small book exceeded my expectations. Taken separately, its stories are quite topical and quite interesting. Taken together, they tell us a little bit more about our 40th president and it becomes clearer than ever that he was not only a great president and a great human being but also a master story teller. In my view, this book should be of interest to anyone who is interested in Ronald Reagan as well as those who simply appreciate a good story well told.



3. On Sept. 20, 1983 during my freshman year at the University of South Carolina, RR came to speak. When some students of the far left heckled him, he replied "Is there an echo out there?" and disarmed them. He also entertained the crowd with folksy anecdotes of his days at Eureka College that we as students could identify with. Most of the students (myself included) who disagreed with many of his policies and would never vote for him in susequent elections agreed that RR had a gift with a story and with an audience.
   
   This is the RR that appears in this book. These are the folksy anecdotes that he shared mostly with radio audiences and a few are from his presidential days and some go as far back as his newspaper columns in the 1930s. Much of this makes for good light reading, such as his impressions of hollywood in the 30s and his joy of his parents coming out for a visit, the tale of his hosting a black fellow athlete at his home when a hotel refused to house him, and of the girl who braved a crowd of student demonstrators to shake his hand, as ell as his observations on death.
   
   Unlike some other compliations of RR's writings, tales such as these transcend political opinion. This would make good bedside reading or on a short flight.



4. Not earth-shattering or impressive, still this collection of stories written by President Ronald Reagan is a worthwhile glimpse into the thinking of our former president. Each story is brief, a format that lends itself well to a person whose habit is to read a book little bits at a time due to a busy schedule. I found the stories insightful and well done, further demonstrating to me the depth and integrity of someone I've admired for many years.



5. This is a compilation of transcripts of Ronald Reagan's radio talk-show from the late 1970's. Reagan always loved to use stories to communicate ideas and give advice, and this collection is replete with perfect examples of that. I believe that the four components of leadership are:

   1) A clear vision of a better future; 2) The ability to communicate that vision; 3) The ability to get others to want to listen to your ideas and to believe you; 4) The ability to translate your vision into action

   Whatever you might think of Reagan's vision for America or of the actions he took, this book shows us how he excelled at communicating his vision and pulling people into it. He was not called "The Great Communicator" without reason, and this book shows you that reason clearly. This is a treasure for Reagan fans, and for anyone who wants ideas on how to be more charismatic.

2 comments about El pais bajo mi piel.

1. Gioconda is another magnificent representative of the Latin American generation of authors that emerged in the seventies and eighties amidst social turmoils. Gioconda's artistry of words and poetry are evident throughout this book. Also the book arrangement, i.e. two threads set at two different time periods of her life, if not innovative fits nicely to convey her passionate, powerfully feminine message. This is perhaps the strongest point in this autobiography: the utmost defense of "las compañeras" in her struggle for equality and respect.
   
   Other little jewels are Gioconda's experience with iconic men like Torrijos and Fidel. These two anecdotes deserve to be in a study of the human condition: even in an egalitarian or progressive mind, machismo can be present.
   
   My 4 out of 5 star rate for this book is related to the author's ambiguous political position after the collapse of Sandinismo. In the last part of the book her message comes forth blurred by Gioconda's comfortable upper middle-class life in a serene Californian homestead. Suddenly, all that life-commitment with the revolution becomes a Sunday afternoon TV movie on "Oxygen" or "We". Then several pages, filled with apparently extensively meditated explanations, try to justify why she chose comfort to revolution. Personally, I think she closed the circle (as she likes to repeat through her book): she came back to her cradle in a solacing environment. Eventually, she goes back to Nicaragua to plunge back into "people's struggle" while being aware that she can always return to his Californian refuge. Not exactly a revolutionary life.



2. I've read the book (in its extremely sensitive and emphatic German translation immediately after my wife finished reading it and told me that it was a must for me to read!)

   The "must" was worthwhile because of the incredible breadth of Belli's writing expressiveness and intensity of the emotions expressed. In this respect I felt with her and for her in all her moods, life situations, her frustrations and her moments of joy.

   Reading it in that way, it is truthful, self-critical, just fascinating.

   But....and the BUT is my critical BUT.....where Belli, whose dairy-like autobiography this is (because otherwise whe would never have been able to reconstract the three decades of her life she talks about in "The Country Under My Skin" where she recalls all those names an situations with the accuracy as she does), the political aspect being portrayed in the book is strikingly unfair
   and is in severe contradiction to what is known to have actually happened between the terribel '72 earthquake and the end of the millenium as regards the Sandinistas and their revolution and the latter-day developments.
   The political stance Ms. Belli takes throughout her narrative is heavily lop-sided, if not naïve. Ms. Belli, who has in many ways "run into her hated enemy's arms" by living in the US, and does not really appear to have had any qualms about it, nor about passing on pure hear-say about political intrigues and movemements, acribically puts down dates and names and improper behaviour of the so-called enemies of the revolution, but she does not find any need to set right the warped political picture her Sandinista ideologists have slyly - and successfully - embedded in her mind.

   Ms. Belli should stick to writing her very beautiful prose - and stop loving her country by lashing out at phantoms, and painting a halo of "libertador" on irrespressive revolutionaries like Castro at al.....Nicaragua has not stopped suffering from the aftereffects of power-obsessed personalities, much as as it had been suffering from the Somoza nightmare.
   To be sure that I am not just blowing off steam for the sake of criticism, I have once again taken time and consulted credible sources on the actual facts of Nicaraguas transition from Somozism to Sandinism-Tercereistas and the years that followed....and have tried to do this without being blind on one eye...

   What I have finally found to be a representative truth does certainly not identify with many aspects Ms. Belli sets forth in her autobiography.
   Personally, I love South America. My mother tongues were English and Spanish, having spent my childhood in Venezuela, Argentina, Perú and Colombia.

1 comments about My Life: An Attempt at an Autobiography (Dover Value Editions).

1. Today we expect political memoir writers to take part in a game of show and tell about the most intimate details of their private personal lives on their road to celebrity. Refreshingly, you will find no such tantalizing details in Russian Bolshevik leader Leon Trotsky's memoir written in 1930 just after Stalin had exiled him to Turkey. Instead you will find a thoughtful political self-examination by a man trying to draw the lessons of his fall from power in order to set his future political agenda. This task is in accord with his stated conception of his role as an individual agent at service in the historical struggle toward a socialist future. Thus, underlying the selection of events highlighted in the memoir such as the rise of the revolutionary wave in Russia in 1905 and 1917, the devastation to the socialist program of World War I and the degeneration of the Russian Revolution especially after Lenin's death and the failure of the German Revolution of 1923 is a sense of urgency about the need for continued struggle for a socialist future. It also provides a platform as well for polemics against those foes and former supporters who have either abandoned or betrayed that struggle.
   
   At the beginning of the 21st century when socialist political programs are in decline it is hard to imagine the spirit that drove Trotsky to dedicate his whole life to the fight for a socialist society. However, at the beginning of the 20th century he represented only the most consistent and audacious of a revolutionary generation of Eastern Europeans and Russians who set out to change the history of the 20th century. It was as if the best and brightest of that generation were afraid, for better or worse, not to take part in the political struggles that would shape the modern world. As Trotsky notes this element was lacking, with the exceptions of Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Liebknecht and precious few others, in the Western labor movement. Trotsky using his own experiences tells the story of the creation of this revolutionary cadre with care and generally proper proportions.
   
   Many of the events such as the disputes within the Russian revolutionary movement, the attempts by the Western Powers to overthrow the Bolsheviks in the Civil War after their seizure of power and the struggle of the various tendencies inside the Russian Communist Party and in the Communist International discussed in the book may not be familiar to today's audience. Nevertheless one can still learn something from the strength of Trotsky's commitment to his cause and the fight to preserve his personal and political integrity against overwhelming odds. As the organizer of the October Revolution, creator of the Red Army in the Civil War, orator, writer and fighter Trotsky he was one of the most feared men of the early 20th century to friend and foe alike. Nevertheless, I do not believe that he took his personal fall from power as a world historic tragedy. Moreover, he does not gloss over his political mistakes. Nor does he generally do personal injustice to his various political opponents although I would not want to have been subject to his rapier wit and pen. Politicians, revolutionary or otherwise, in our times should take note.