5 comments about And I Haven't Had a Bad Day Since: From the Streets of Harlem to the Halls of Congress.

1. I "knew" Rep. Rangel from his work in Congress. His life? Remarkable. Wish I could vote for him. Better than Obama for presidential nomination. And I am not black.



2. Congressman Rangel's autobiography is exceptionally candid. For anyone interested in politics this is a must read. He tells it as it was and is. I can't think of any political autobiography that is so candidly self critical. While Mr. Rangel does trumpet his many accomplishments he does not shrink from expressing doubts about himself. It is no wonder that his constituents have maintained him in office for 37 years and that he garners over 90% of the vote in each congressional re-election.
   
   He a "little guy's champion." It would be difficult not to like him even if you do not agree with his legislative positions.



3. I was flipping channels when I came across an interview with Charles Rangel on the Charlie Rose show. I was not familiar with him or his politics but he had a level of energy and charisma that led me to look him up online.
   
   I enjoy political biographies and memoirs and was interested in his perspective based on his 30+ years in Congress. He has led a fascinating life from his boyhood days to serving the country in Korea to working the political machine in DC and NY.
   
   "You can not imagine and dream what you have not been informed of." This statement in an early chapter foreshadows how Mr. Rangel built a career and a life with no precedent in his immediate surroundings. The human story of his adventures keeps the book interesting. He is a great example of a person who learns from his experiences and is continuously applying it while striving to make a difference with his politics.
   
   The complicated mix of friendships, loyalties, opponents and foes are as expected with a political leader. Extraordinary stories describe his alliances and longstanding loyalties to his district. The fact that he has lived within the same area of Harlem since his childhood shows his dedication and commitment, as well as a marathon level of perseverance.
   
   I may not agree 100% with his politics but he has a way of stating his position that is impressive. One example is his stance on the war and the draft. Having served in the military during wartime, he is uniquely qualified to represent the interests of our soldiers. His position that those who support a war should support a draft is thought-provoking. Meaning if you support the war, you should support potentially having those closest to you as active participants.
   
   I'm surprised that I was not familiar with Charlie Rangel before, but I'm glad that I caught up with this biography. I appreciated learning about him, his career and most importantly his political stance that has and will continue to shape legislation.



4. Rangel has chosen to forget at least one bad day while he was in Congress. As a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, Rangel permitted the Caucus to use the franking privilege of members to mail the Caucus' propaganda. The franking privilege permits members of Congresss to mail material without paying any postage. John Cervase, a courageous lawyer from Newark, recognized that this practice was illegal and filed suit against Rangel in U.S. District Court in Manhattan. The Court rendered a judgment that prohibited Rangel from continuing this practice.
   This was not the first time that Cervase had the courage to stand up to the Black Establishment. In the early 1970s, Kenneth Gibson, the Black mayor of Newark, appointed a 17 year old black to the Newark School Board. The teenage member persuaded the Board to adopt a resolution that permitted Newark schools to fly the "Black Liberation Flag". Cervase, a member of the Board, objected, filed suit, and won an injunction against the Board.
   Later in the decade, Black "poet" Imamu Amiri Baraka tried to build a high-rise in the Italian North Ward named Kawaida Towers. The Italian residents objected because it was a racist Trojan Horse in their neighborhood. Cervase and Anthony Imperiale lead demonstrations against the Towers. The New Yorker published a good article about the controversey. Eventually Baraka, now the "poet laureate of New Jersey", abandoned his plans.
   Hopefully others who stood up to Rangel will tell their stories about other bad days in his life.



5. Charlie Rangel surprised me with his wit and respect for the institutions he has served in. He is a far more humble man than I would have guessed, but he knows what factors directed his life. Anyone who wants to see how his race has moved up, survived urban conditions, and then served and contributed has to read this book. It also shows how much prejudice and ethnic ties affect politics more this yuppie-fied world we now live in will admit. It has always been this way, and Charlie Rangel accepts it realisticaly and displays the years since the Korean war where he has served his country in its government. I like watching Congressional moves and am personally surprised more do not hang with C-SPAN observing both houses in these critical times. I found myself agreeing with the Congressman from NY City more than I thought I might; he is a brilliant man and I am glad he accomplished becoming chair of the Ways and Means Committee. The years immediately ahead are going to be tough, and we need him there. I am an Independent, but will always vote Democratic after what this current administration has done to this country. My book on flying helicopters in Vietnam stresses the USA's mistakes there, but the Bush Administration has unbelievably exceeded those mistakes of the past.

5 comments about The Adams Women: Abigail and Louisa Adams, Their Sisters and Daughters.

1. A small book with a large amount of information. The women described in this book are giants to my mind. They provided succor to their men and ran the equivalent of a modern business in their households, and in cases their sisters as well. I would have liked to know them all.



2. Co-dependent relatives? Disfunctional families? Yes, these are modern pop-psychology terms. But Paul Nagel shows that these things existed at least two centuries ago, in one of Americaýs most prominent families.

   Most of the book discussed the Smith sisters --- Mary, Abigail, and Elizabeth. What struck me most about these three is how much they came to rely on each other. This has a good side --- i.e., thereýs always a sympathetic ear to listen, or a shoulder to cry on, or a pair of hands to pitch in when help was needed. It has a ýbadý side too --- for often one sisterýs ýconcerný for or about another bordered on interference. And it seems that the first rule of the Smith Sisters was ýNever raise your own children when they can be passed on to a relative.ý But who knows, maybe that was just the eighteenth century form of ýday care.ý

   The other major chunk of the book describes John Quincy Adamsý wife Louisa: a very fascinating, intelligent, and educated woman ... whose husband probably did not appreciate her. If anything, John Quincy appeared rather wimpy compared to Louisa.

   The final generation discussed in this book is that of Charles Francis Adams and his wife --- also Abigail.

   Throughout the book we are treated to accounts and anecdotes about the various Adams relatives and in-laws. It is amazing how the behavior of these people came so close to disgracing or embarrassing the sitting presidents, John or John Quincy. If it happened today, the Press would be all over it!

   This was the second of Paul Nagelýs books on the Adams family that Iýve read. Like his John Quincy Adams, The Adams Women was informative and well-researched, if a bit pedantic in tone. It brought to life this fascinating family and the era in which they lived.




3. Author Nagel has done a wonderful job of bringing the lives of the Adams women to life. The first part of the book concentrates on Abigail Smith, wife of John Adams and her sisters. Their letters describing their daily lives are fascinating. The various daughters of these women are also highlighted. The only daughter of John and Abigail, Abigail (nickednamed Nabby) is a particularly heartbreaking story. Pushed by her mother to marry a "promising" young man, she becomes the abandoned wife of a cruel alcoholic, living in near poverty. Unable to break away because of the strict moral codes of the time, she succombs to cancer, dying in her father's arms. Almost all of the women of the family were tortured by the alcoholism of either their husbands or sons. Louisa Johnson, the wife of John Quincy Adams is also highlighted. Her unhappy marriage to a difficult man is portrayed sympathetically.

   Even though thiese women lived almost 200 years ago, their stories are timeless. Unable to contol their own destinies, these women nevertheless contributed greatly to their families and communities.




4. Nagel starts his book with a discussion of how happy he is to write another book on the Adames, specifically on the women. He then proceeds to tear the best of them, Abigail Sr., to shreds. Portraying her as shrewish, domineering, and just distasteful, he paints an inaccuratly biased view of an amazing woman who was far before her time. Although I don't know enough of the other women to critque his evaluations of them, I have read Abigails letters at the Mass Historical society and have read countless books on her during the last six months in relation to an intensive research project. I have seen many different "reads" of Abigail from feminist to domestic to maternal...but none so blatantly anti-Abigail. I suppose the world needs dissent to continue to have interesting discourse, but Nagel quite obviously hates Abigail Adams. If you read his book, please temper it with something like Portia, which is admittedly dry, but will give you a good counterpoint to Nagels criticisms.



5. Another winner for Nagel. This book is as good as his other two about the Adams family. I still don't find Abigail very likeable. The pressure she put on her children to achieve broke 3 of them and the lone successful child (John Quincy) turned around and did the same with his children. I really enjoyed the writer's descriptions of Louisa. I hope to see a full blown biography of her someday...she deserves it! I gained a true understanding why John Quincy had the personality he did. Abigail was extremely intelligent and ahead of her time. I enjoyed reading of her true partnership with husband John.

5 comments about 1858: Abraham Lincoln, Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, Ulysses S. Grant and the War They Failed to See.

1. I will confess straight away that I have not read the book, but I find the title so misleading that I feel compelled to comment. None of these figures 'failed to see' that the Civil War was a great threat and possibly inevitable. See The Impending Crisis by David Potter, The Road to Disunion by Freehing, or Michael Holt's books.



2. 1858: Abraham Lincoln, Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, Ulysses S. Grant and The War They Failed to See, Bruce Chadwick , Sourcebooks Inc., 355 pp., notes, bibliography, index, 2008, $24.95
   
   1858 offers clear and concise descriptions of key political and social events that shoved the states into rebellion and resistance. Adventurous and even compelling at times, 1858 moves the reader through twelve months of political and social turmoil. Chadwick explores not the mundane but the exceptional.
   
   Not familiar to most Civil War readers is Jefferson Davis' 1858 visit to Maine in order to recuperate from herpes and build a coalition of Northern Democrats in a bid to establish a presidential candidacy in 1860. The Southern press pilloried him to the point that when he returned he retracted his statements. Ironically, these retractions put him into a position where he would be offered a presidency in 1861, that of the Confederate States of America.
   
   In one six page chapter, Chadwick offers a cogent and balanced description of the Dred Scott Decision, one of the most important U.S. Supreme Court event in U.S. history. His ability to put into place the origins, personalities, issues, and outcomes of this event is exceptional. As a Advance Placement U.S. History test reader, CWL reflected that this chapter would be a fine contribution to student resources.
   
   Though CWL is quite familiar with the Lincoln-Douglas debates, the Oberlin Ohio Rescue and John Brown's escape with slaves from Missouri to Canada, Chadwick offers the essentials in a manner that captures the excitement and underscores their place in bringing the states to the brink of rebellion in 1860. After reading 1858, Civil War buffs may have a new appreciation for the events leading to the Secession Winter of 1860-1861. Some readers may need to keep in mind that all soldiers in the ranks had lived through and had argued over the events of 1858.
   
   Though a Pennsylvanian, CWL has not be able to work up any enthusiasm for James Buchanan, 15th president of the United States. Chadwick's 1858 covers the Buchanan presidency in nine chapters that fall between chapters on Davis, Lee, the Lincoln-Douglas debates, the Oberlin Rescue, Seward's Irrepressible Conflict speech, and John Brown's rescue of slaves from Missouri. Read consecutively the Buchanan White House chapters make the case for this Northern Democrat holding Southern Democrats' interest higher than his own section and possibly allowing the conflict to become truly irrepressible.
   
   Some quibbles: The subtitle is unclear; nine of 17 chapters deal with the Buchanan White House, two deal with Lincoln and Douglas, and single chapters deal with Lee, Davis, Seward, Sherman, The Dred Scott Decision, John Brown's Raid on Missouri and the Slaveholder's raid on Nicaragua. Mysteriously, U.S. Grant is mentioned only on four pages in the book but is in the subtitle. Buchanan has nine chapters but has no mention in the title at all.
   
   CWL suggests that the subtitle be changed for the paperback edition: 1858--The Year the Civil War Became Inevitable for Davis, Lee, Douglas, Lincoln, Seward, Sherman and John Brown. Or 1858--Blood Before The Civil War's Dawn: The Men Who Pulled the Trigger on the War.
   
   Chadwick assumes the reader has no detailed understanding of the period; 1858 is written for the general audience. For the paperback edition, a chronology for the year should be added as well as a brief chronology of the 1846-1860 era. A list of characters would also be helpful for the general audience. Also, the index needs some attention. The entry--Forney, John--lists 6 pages with three subtopics. John Forney has a whole chapter, Number Nine, pages 135-140 but these pages are not listed under the entry--Forney, John--in the index. Some proofreading needs to be done. Notes 159, 160 and 161 are the same font size as the text font; these note number should be the superscript font size, just like the other 744 notes.



3. I have to admit that I can't quite place this book. I would say on the one hand I was disappointed because while it did a good job of portraying the year 1858 it could have just as easily been 1856 or 1860, both of which would have been more interesting. The book spent a lot of time focusing on personal rivalries to the detriment of painting the national picture. Also certain figures who would rise to prominence in the Civil War were given great exposure yet others were barely mentioned. (Like Grant)
   
   So all in all if you like the period, there are worse reads out there but I still think that James McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom does a much better job at portraying the period.



4. Reads like a novel, but its pure history and gives a perspective on the Civil War which has been lacking. The war wasn't about slavery in the south, but more so about slavery in the new states of the west....



5. Why 1858? I found myself asking that question repeatedly the entire time I was reading this book. What made 1858 THE year to look at in regards to the coming of the Civil War. Author Bruce Chadwick tries (largely unsuccessfully, in my opinion) to argue that 1858 was the year slavery became THE main issue facing the United States and events which occurred in 1858 played a large role in bringing about the war. In his Foreword, Chadwick tells the reader he will attempt to accomplish this by weaving together seven stories of people and events, linking these disparate stories together with looks into James Buchanan's "spectacular failure" as President.
   
   1858 weaves together seven stories all (loosely) tied together by Buchanan's Presidency. These stories are, in no particular order:
   
   1. Jefferson Davis
   2. Robert E. Lee
   3. William T. Sherman
   4. The Oberlin-Wellington Slave Rescue
   5. William H. Seward
   6. John Brown
   7. The Lincoln-Douglas Debates
   
   At first, I was intrigued by the author's decision to abandon a traditional narrative and use what I thought would be an interesting change of pace. The idea works better in theory than in the pages of 1858, however. Stories are broken up into different chapters with little regard for continuity or chronological order. For readers new to the subject, this may very well be misleading as far as a time line of these events goes.
   
   As I stated in my introduction, my main and overriding question while reading the entire book was "Why 1858? What makes this year so special?" Unfortunately, although the author does claim he chose 1858 because it was THE year slavery became the overriding issue facing the United States, he doesn't give nearly enough reason WHY, and thus doesn't really answer my question. In essence, he argues FOR 1858, but he really gives no arguments AGAINST other years. To me, slavery had been THE issue for quite some time. A post concerning the Compromise of 1850 at Elektratig shows that slavery was very much at the forefront of the country's concerns as the 1850s opened, and that the Civil War may well have started a decade earlier had the Compromise of 1850 not happened. I can agree with the Lincoln-Douglas debates and the Oberlin-Wellington Slave rescue as two MAJOR events involving slavery and an acceleration towards war. However, other events outside of this year, especially John Brown's Harpers Ferry Raid in 1859 and obviously the Presidential Election of 1860 were major events which did much to hasten the Civil War. Chadwick does argue that the seeds were sewn for these events in 1858. He stresses that John Brown's raid into Missouri and successful escape with slaves into Canada in 1858 and the Lincoln-Douglas debates led to these other events. That may be true, but the MAIN events happened in years other than 1858. Without belaboring the point too much, I believe you simply cannot make a strong case that 1858 was any more important than many other years in causing the Civil War or having slavery become THE issue facing the country. Chadwick's failure too largely explain WHY or argue against other years only drives home the point for me.
   
   To me, deciding to include William T. Sherman was an odd choice other than to allow the author/publisher to get Ulysses S. Grant's name into the subtitle of the book. Grant is barely mentioned, and Sherman had hardly anything to do with the author's assertion that 1858 was the year slavery became the most important issue in the country. The only reason I can see to include Sherman is to show an example of a Northerner who had no strong feelings towards slavery, much like Robert E. Lee was personally opposed to slavery as a Southerner. In reading the chapters covering Sherman, I was puzzled as to what purpose his antebellum life story served to the narrative as a whole.
   
   The subtitle of the book is especially puzzling to me. U.S. Grant is listed and he is barely mentioned in the book, pretty much only in relation to the Sherman portion of the story. Putting a famous figure into your title or subtitle only to barely mention them isn't going to win points with this reviewer. Another issue I have with the subtitle is "The War They Failed to See." Huh? Lincoln's "House Divided" speech is mentioned. So is Jefferson Davis' ascension in late 1858 as the leader of the Secession Movement. John Brown not only saw war coming, he was determined to start it himself! And lastly, Seward's "Irrepressible Conflict" speech is also stressed. It seems to me these men at least had an inkling that war was at the very least very possible if not imminent if some drastic steps were not taken with regards to slavery. I don't want to pin this on the author at all. Marketing sells books, and the subtitle screams MARKETING from a tall building. Blame the publisher here folks.
   
   If you have lasted this long, you might believe I hated 1858. This is definitely not so. My policy is to get the bad out of the way first and move on to the good. Let's start with the author's style. Bruce Chadwick is definitely a good storyteller. Despite some continuity issues in his narrative choice as mentioned earlier, I read this 300 page book in only two sittings. I could not put it down.
   
   Chadwick's chapters on the gross ineptitude of James Buchanan's Presidency were my favorite portions of the book. Rather than focus on the slavery issue and try to resolve it in some way, Buchanan instead completely ignored slavery when possible and blinded himself to the enormity of the problem the rest of the time. His "Don Quixote-ish schemes", as Chadwick calls them, to annex portions of Central and South America by any means possible while ignoring slavery was just one issue. In addition, Buchanan chose to fight petty feuds with two powerful men, Senator Stephen Douglas and newspaper editor John Forney, and these feuds were disastrous for the Democratic party in the elections of 1858 and the Presidential election of 1860. More than any other man, Buchanan had the power to slow or even prevent radical developments with regards to the slavery situation. Instead, says Chadwick, he did nothing while radicals on both sides led the nation to the brink of war.
   
   I was also pleasantly surprised with the bibliography and notes. Chadwick uses a nice number of endnotes, including 747 in exactly 300 pages of text. He did use quite a few secondary sources, but for what was obviously to me a "pop history" book aimed more at the masses than to deep readers, Chadwick also looked at the papers of many of those involved in the events of the year 1858 and around 90 newspapers published at the time. A serviceable index rounds out the book.
   
   Bruce Chadwick's 1858 sets out to prove that year was the year slavery became THE issue in the United States, but was rather unsuccessful in this regard. His arguments for 1858 as the year were sparse and his arguments against other years were non-existent. The story's continuity suffered somewhat as a result of some conscious choices on the author's part. Despite these flaws, 1858 is an enjoyable read aimed at the masses which I would be happy to recommend to readers new to the subject. Deep readers will find this material covered elsewhere in much greater detail.

5 comments about The Sins of the Father: Joseph P. Kennedy and the Dynasty he Founded.

1. Kessler details the life of Joseph P. Kennedy, the father of Robert, Teddy and Jack Kennedy and the founder of one of the largest political dynasties in America. JPK is not given a very favorable look in this book. He is listed as an adulterer, a swindler, a crook, power hungry and unscrupulous. And that was just on the first side of the first tape. Because I don't know how much of this book is truly factual, I can't give it a proper review. Frankly, I bought it out of a discount bin for a long trip I was taking. However, it's a fascinating look at one of the people that isn't closely examined in history. It is an abridgement of the source work; it runs three hours and is read perfectly by Frank Langella.



2. Kessler does an excellent job writing, truly, about the sins of the father, Joseph P. Kennedy. I had heard many stories about the man, but I didn't realize to what extent these stories were myths or real. Kessler certainly dispels that these stories are myths. He tells us what a manipulative, conniving, scheming, deceitful man that Kennedy really was.
   
   We are treated to the stories of Kennedy's manipulation of the stock market for his own personal gain; his illegal importation of scotch to pad his growing millions; his manipulation and theft of Gloria Swanson's monies. It doesn't stop there. Kessler tells about how Joe wanted to avert war since he was afraid he would lose millions of dollars.
   
   Kessler tells us how much Joe manipulated and controlled his children so that they would conform to his standards; and how their political life was formed in order for Joe to pursue his own dreams via his children's lives.
   
   After reading of Joe's death, one has to wonder whether Joe's cruel and deceitful life was worth it in the end - two assassinated children; Rosemary's lobotomy; a family myth built on lies. A simply incredible book - first rate from start to finish.



3. A very fine book exposing the Kennedys. I am somewhat surprised that such immoral things could happen in free and democratic U.S. In any event, justice has been done. No Kennedy is likely to be President in the near future. Jo's manipulative and power-hungry character did not serve him well. The early and untimely deaths of his three sons gave him more sorrow and grief than anything else.



4. I have read a few books by Ronald Kessler. It is a recurring theme that I find myself irritated by how uncharitable Kessler is...unless Kessler honestly believes that The FBI ("the Bureau") did nothing right and that Joseph Kennedy was an absolute villain. Kessler has a tough time saying anthing good about Joseph Kennedy, The FBI or most of his other topics. I think Kessler's novels need balance and fairness. Maybe only the negative and scandalous is stimulating or salable but the novels leave me feeling annoyed.



5. It is a good and fair book, well written and researched. To read this book is so essential to know and understand - really - an important american family like the Kennedys, apart from the mith that this cool man, Joseph Kennedy, helped much more than anybody else in the family to create and foster. There are some dark sides, but the truth is one thing and the legend is another and of course if you prefer the latter leave this book on the shelf and go on dreaming.

4 comments about Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher: A Political Marriage.

1. If there was anyone who truly bestrode the 1980s like colossi, it was Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. While they acted upon the world stage, the other nations were forced to deal with them - were forced to react, while they acted. Together they reinvigorated their nations, challenged and defeated the Soviet Empire, and reshaped the modern world in ways that are still being felt some twenty years after their passing from power.
   
   In this fascinating book, author and journalist Nicholas Wapshott, draws on interviews and hundreds of personal correspondences to give a full view of their relationship. Theirs was not the simple, distant relationship enjoyed by most national leaders, instead their relationship was more like a marriage. They shared deeply-held values, they talked out and often fought over policies, and proved impervious to any attempts to set them against each other.
   
   I must admit that I really loved this book. I came of age (politically) during the Carter malaise, and remember the Reagan era with great affection. Plus, what Conservative does not fondly remember Britain's Iron Lady? This book does an excellent job of giving the reader an inside view of the relationship between Reagan and Thatcher, and really explaining what happened between them and what it meant for the rest of the world.
   
   I think that this book does a great job of giving the reader an insider's view of the 1980s, informing and explaining. This is one of the best books I have read in a while - and I read many good books - and I do not hesitate to give it my highest recommendations! Buy this book!



2. Nicholas Wapshott gives us a dual biography of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher and what he calls their `political marriage' during the 1980s when they were the hugely popular leaders of the United States and Great Britain. He shows us their childhood and the unlikely careers that finally lead to the White House and #10 Downing Street. It is interesting to remember that Thatcher's period as Prime Minister began before and ended after Reagan's Presidency. However, Reagan seemed to leave office with greater comfort than Thatcher did. Of course, Reagan was term limited while Thatcher ended up being undermined by her party as well as the accumulation of political missteps.
   
   Wapshott presents their careers and lives in a largely positive light, but does not shy away from criticism. Nor does he favor either Reagan or Thatcher. He shows the strengths of each as well as their blind spots. What the book excels at is showing their friendship and its being stronger than their sometimes vehement disagreements. These periods of confrontation are fascinating. The book bills itself as featuring previously unpublished correspondence, and it delivers these very interesting letters, but there are not as many of them as I had expected. This doesn't detract from the book in any way, but I just thought you should know that this isn't primarily a book of correspondence between the two world leaders.
   
   Were Thatcher and Reagan as important a global leadership team as Churchill and FDR? Maybe not quite, but their partnership during a critical period of the Cold War certainly helped it become a period LATE in the Cold War. Wapshott is not so sure that they caused the fall of the Soviet Union as much as they were in office when the USSR ran out of gas. While I am not a scholar of the period, I lived through most of the Cold War and followed it closely. I have no doubt that Reagan and Thatcher led the West and made things sufficiently more difficult for the Soviet leaders that they did contribute to its demise. And I am delighted each day that they did. You can't point to the way the West has muffed the post Cold War relationship with Russia to judge it any more than you can say that the Cold War makes our victory in WWII less victorious.
   
   A solid, concise, and interesting telling of these two lives on the world stage.
   
   Reviewed by Craig Matteson, Ann Arbor, MI



3. This dual biography details the remarkably parallel lives of two of the late 20th Century's most influential world leaders. Both were raised "above the store" as children of merchants, though Thatcher's father owned the store, whereas Reagan's hard-luck father never did. Both were insurgents and change-agents in traditional, staid political parties. Both were freedom-promoting anti-totalitarians deeply committed to breaking the legacy of Yalta and, in Reagan's words, "transcending" Communism. Both enhanced their reputations for firmness by staring down powerful unions -- PATCO in the U.S.; the National Union of Mineworkers in the U.K. Both furthered national restoration, in part, through controversial, but ultimately successful military expeditions.
   
   Making use of newly released correspondence, diaries and phone transcripts, journalist Nicholas Wapshott mines the depths of the Thatcher-Reagan political partnership. Like any marriage, they did not always agree. And at times, the disagreements were quite contentious. For example, the iron-willed Thatcher is seen upbraiding Reagan in strong terms over U.S. resistance to her Falklands action; Reagan's decision not to consult Thatcher before launching the Grenada invasion, and U.S.-led restrictions on Western companies supporting the Soviet Siberian gas pipeline. Reagan's zero-option nuclear gambit at Reykjavik also drew a stern post-mortem rebuke from Thatcher. Reagan is seen parrying these hot critiques with charm and diplomacy.
   
   Reagan and Thatcher, of course, came to dissimilar ends. Reagan quietly disappeared from public life (even before the onset of Alzheimer's), while Thatcher, felled in an intra-party coup, remained an outspoken, if somewhat embittered commentator on world events.
   
   Wapshott's book is not an authoritative biography, but it does provide revealing insights into the most intimate and successful trans-Atlantic political partnership since Roosevelt and Churchill.



4. Seldom have two heads-of-state been better matched to work for common goals than were Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. However, neither their personal relationship nor their political one was as placid as usually portrayed for benefit of the general public on both sides of the Atlantic. Nicholas Wapshott's dual biography, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher: A Political Marriage, offers a more realistic look at the personal relationship that helped change the course of world history by so directly contributing to the end of the Cold War.
   
   Reagan and Thatcher, whose terms in office overlapped by the eight years of Reagan's presidency, first met in 1975 at the suggestion of a friend of Reagan's who believed that the two would be natural political allies. At the time of their meeting, Thatcher had just been elected Conservative leader and Reagan had just finished his second term as governor of California and was being pressed by some for a run at the presidency. On that eventful day, the pair found their political views to be almost identical and they forged an alliance, both personal and political, that would remain strong and productive throughout Reagan's entire term as President of the United States.
   
   Margaret Thatcher saw Ronald Reagan as an inspirational figure but Reagan's tremendous respect for her political skills, and his willingness to listen to her and to take her advice on a regular basis, placed Thatcher in the unusual position of being almost an unofficial member of the Reagan Cabinet. As a result, Thatcher influenced American international policy like no world leader other than Winston Churchill had ever done before her. She was not afraid to make demands of Reagan and she found him a willing listener who could often be moved in the political direction that she preferred as British Prime Minister.
   
   That is not to say that Ronald Reagan always gave in to Margaret Thatcher's arguments, but she knew that she could always count on Reagan to give her point-of-view a fair hearing. Together, the two leaders hastened the demise of the Soviet Union by keeping the "heat" on its leadership and by engaging their two economies in a spending war for military weapons that the Soviets could not long sustain.
   
   On the surface, the two seem to have had little in common. Thatcher's formative years as a shopkeeper's daughter, with a religious father who seldom allowed alcohol in his home, was very different from the childhood endured by Reagan, son of an alcoholic father who could barely afford food and shelter for his family at times. But remarkably Thatcher and Reagan ended up with the same strong beliefs that nothing was more important than family and religious faith. Both believed in hard work and developed a true appreciation for those who made their living in "trade," producing a strong belief in each of them that everyone deserves respect and fair treatment regardless of social class or financial worth, lessons that served each of them well in their political careers.
   
   Nicholas Wapshott's use of the treasure trove of hundreds of recently declassified letters, notes, transcripts of telephone conversations and recollections of many who witnessed the relationship as insiders has resulted in an effective political history of the eighties and the kind of dual biography that political junkies everywhere will enjoy. Taken alone, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher would have likely been recognized as remarkable politicians, but taken together as a unified team with common goals they enjoyed the kind of success that the pairing of George W. Bush and Tony Blair could only dream about. What they accomplished by joining forces was astounding.

5 comments about The Bureau and the Mole: The Unmasking of Robert Philip Hanssen, the Most Dangerous Double Agent in FBI History.

1. This book doesn't compare with David Wise's book "Spy, The Inside Story of How the FBI's Robert Hanssen Betrayed America." There seems to be a lot of assumptions and conjecture's in the Vise book. Wise has much better sources.



2. The book provided background on not only Robert Hanssen, but also the individuals associated with the job. I enjoyed the book very much.



3. A frightening look into the mind and works of a socially inadequate FBI Agent who betrayed the American people, trading their safety over cash and diamond. The most disturbing fact was his fantasy of retiring from the FBI and move to Moscow and train future spies. The author did an excellent job in telling the lives of a deceitful Hanssen and of a dedicated Director Freeh.
   
   Undoubtedly written by a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist.
   
   Check also: They Spy who Stayed out in the Cold.
   Cold Eyes



4. I felt the book was very interesting. It has a good narative form.
   I do feel, however, it could have been less graphic on some of Robert's home life. I did read it after seeing the movie "Breach". The book's characterizations of the two main personalities added interest. The author has done a good job with a difficult subject



5. This book was a page turner. The author built a psychological profile of Robert Hansesn as well as reported historical facts, to try to give us some insight into his motivation, as well as placed him in a historical context. How could someone who loved this country and was devoted to law enforcement become such a terrible traitor and cause the death of so many people? It gives an amazing account.

2 comments about The Americano: Fighting with Castro for Cuba's Freedom.

1. Morgan's story is almost too amazing to believe. A hapless soul with nothing to lose -- kicked out of schools and dishonorably discharged from the army -- washes up in Cuba and within months becomes a Cuban national hero?! This gringo didn't even speak Spanish and now (thanks to this book) has a legitimate claim to being properly recognized as one of the genuine heroes of the Cuban revolution. Just look at the cover with this dropout from Ohio walking arm-in-arm with Che and Castro.
   
   This is a wonderful story of charisma, good timing, and derring-do -- and how someone really can have a second act in life. And what a second act: a drifter morphing into a central player on the international stage. The book offers a lot of color on the "peripheral characters" in Morgan's story, like Castro (a closet Communist at the time), the NY Times mischief-maker Herbert Matthews, and the ruthless Dominican dictator, Rafael Trujillo.
   
   The book shares Morgan's charisma and good timing. It's fun, runs fast, and is full of endearing details to make you fall in love with the guy. Timingwise, it's perfect. The old timers who know what really happened were muzzled by Castro for the last fifty years. They're (mostly) not dead yet, but old enough to spill their guts without fear of retribution. Shetterly does a nice job of getting them to talk, which makes all the difference in this charming story of a forgotten/censored corner of US and Cuban history.



2. There is no shortage of biographies on historical figures. Year after year, we're inundated with new editions on Kennedy and King, Lincoln and Leonardo da Vinci, each purporting to shine a new light on the great individual and their role in history. However, it's often the stories of people who have been lost to history that truly bring the particulars of a certain era into sharp focus. Such is the case with Aran Shetterly's The Americano, the story of William Morgan, a man from Toledo who fought alongside the rebels in the Cuban revolution.
   
   A misfit whose taste for adventure was way bigger than the middle American sensibilities of his native Toledo, William Morgan, after years of mixing it up with small time hoodlums and a troublesome stint in the US Army, finds his way to Cuba, where he enlists with the rebel group the Second National Front of the Escambray. Within months, The Americano, as he is affectionately christened by his new comrades, is one of the unit's leaders, and on his way to becoming one of the central figures in the revolution and a Cuban celebrity.
   
   Morgan rubs shoulders with all of the well-known usual suspects: the Cuban dictator Batista and the Dominican dictator Trujillo, the Argentine rebel commander Che Guevara, Ernest Hemingway, J. Edgar Hoover and the "jefe" himself, Fidel Castro. Shetterly delivers all of the requisite historical detail--names and roles of characters from important to incidental, all the relevant dates and locations, geopolitical backstory--but locates it all within a narrative that is as compelling and cinematic as any story I've read recently, fiction or non-fiction. By the time your come to the breathtaking ending--which somehow still feels like a surprise, even though it's previewed from the beginning--you're well-versed in the nuances of the Cuban story, *and* you've had one rollercoaster of a read.
   
   Cubaphiles regardless of their persuasion will have a field day with this book, as it's exhaustively researched and offers the kind of detail that is usually found in more academic (read: boring) treatments of important moments in history. However, The Americano is so accessible and engaging that those of us with just a cursory knowledge of the history will turn the last page completely satisfied. Highly recommended!

1 comments about Yezhov: The Rise of Stalin's "Iron Fist" (Portraits of Revolution series).

1. This book is an attempt to explain the career path of a person who rose to be the head of Stalin's secret police; it should be read by those with a keen interest in the leadership system of the USSR in the 1930s.
   
   The authors make the case that Mr. Yezhov was simply a hard working, somewhat genial man of his times, who was a natural product of the "Us" against "Them" thinking of Russia's Bolsheviks. He was neither a robot nor a mere tool of Joseph Stalin. I understand these points, but I still think "evil" is a word to be used in describing N.I. Yezhov.
   
   Potential readers should know this is definitely a book focused on the rise of Mr. Yezhov; not much is said of his ultimate downfall. Not much is said about the lives lost or ruined by his deeds.
   
   I think the two academics that wrote this book give every break to N.I.Yezhov when explaining his actions. In fact the book gives little direct evidence on his early days or adult family life. (Not much source material probably exists.) A focus of this book is on the subject's bureaucratic maneuverings during and after the Kirov probe, which were aimed at replacing Mr.Yogda as head of the NKVD.
   
   This is a bloodless telling of the life of a murderous man.

No comments about Mao (Routledge Historical Biographies).

5 comments about The Sole Spokesman: Jinnah, the Muslim League and the Demand for Pakistan (Cambridge South Asian Studies).

1. This is a excellent book on the history of Pakistan. Ayesha Jalal has done her home work and has presented the facts in a very logical fashion. I find this book among the few honest assesment on India and Pakistan division.



2. You say Moderate and secular Congress :

   I say : "Mahatma" Gandhi and "Pandit" Nehru? Is this secularism?

   You say Poisonous fruit of their efforts "A Nuclear Rogue pakistan"

   I ask you which country detonated the nuclear device first? Gandhi's so called secular India or the Nuclear Rogue Pakistan?

   Kindly tell me where you acquires such biases... have you even tried to read the book? Have you read about Mr Jinnah? Why is it that people like yourself wish to propagate the same false myths again and again, and not salute people like Ayesha Jalaal who have done an extremely good job in bringing out the facts..

   Ayesha Jalaal mentions a very important fact... the Muslim Extremists and fanatics like the Ahrar were actually in alliance with your Mr Gandhi and the "secular Moderate Congress Party". Indeed Gandhi brought all fundamentalists and religious fanatics together regardless of religion caste or creed. Truly secular!




3. Indeed, the premise of the book is correct, Mr Jinnah was a SECULARIST! However, by 1946, did he still want a unified India? I dont think so.

   By the way, the guy who wrote the first review.. I am afraid, Bias aint gonna get you anywhere.




4. In her masterly work of deceit, Ayesha Jalal would have a century of research hung by the way side.

   A generally well-accepted principle called Occam's Razor says that a problem should be stated in its basic and simplest terms. The simplest theory that fits the facts of a problem is the one that should be selected. When applied to the events in the Indian subcontinent, the picture appears like a moderate and secular congress fighting to keep India united; pitted against a brilliant political-Muslim Jinnah hell bent on breaking it. A chronic problem of Muslims with peaceful co-habitation manifesting itself into Pakistan.

   But Ayesha would have us believe otherwise..... Congress a Hindu party. Jinnah and his cronies paramount examples of "secular ideals" (look at the poisonous fruit of their efforts .... The nuclear rogue Pakistan...) Gandhi .. the father of Indian partition. Even Bart Simpson won't say "I didn't do it" this innocently.........




5. Ayesha Jalal has delivered a highly impressive piece of work. The research is impeccable and the analysis rigorous. Contrary to most historical accounts of the creation of Pakistan, Ayesha does not engage in rhetoric or political slogans. Instead, her efforts to remain unbiased clearly come across and are admirable. She is a historian par excellence and her talent for writing clearly and lucidly about complex subjects is clearly revealed in this book. A provocative piece of work which might actually get students of India/ Pakistan interested in a subject which they have always found dull.