5 comments about Right Turns: From Liberal Activist to Conservative Champion in 35 Unconventional Lessons.

1. I am a fan of Medved's radio show, and agree with most of his opinions, so it was interesting to see how he developed those views.



2. Right Turns: From Liberal Activist to Conservative Champion in 35 Unconventional Lessons
   
   What an amazing life story. What I found so profound, was my own life experiences, in going from a jewish democrat to jewish conservative republican.
   
   I found his life story quite compelling, and inspiring, to help me find my own jewish identity.
   
   Sadly, being a republican is highly discouraged as a jew. It's rather sad, there are no local places in Minnesota, where you can pray, and not have to worry about being silent, rather than being a part of a good community.
   
   Thank you, Michael Medved, for such an inspiring and heart-warming autobiography.



3. Michael's book is an example of what happens when adolescents mature. When one starts working and has a family to support they cannot remain liberal unless they are insane. Liberalism is a mental disorder but it can be healed with the right amount of encouragement and soul searching by the sick one.



4. Heard Michael Medved read his autobiography, RIGHT TURNS:
   FROM LIBERAL ACTIVIST TO CONERVATIVE CHAMPION
   IN 35 UNCONVENTIONAL LESSONS and must say I was
   impressed--though I don't agree with all his political beliefs.
   
   Yet that's what makes the book so interesting; i.e., that
   Medved gets you to think . . . he has always done that
   for me, even since I started to watch him back when he reviewed
   movies on PBS . . . his opinions were often funny, but they
   were also much more honest than those of his colleague
   Jeffrey Lyons (who could find something admirable in almost any
   film). . . I also got a kick out of his "Golden Turkey Awards,"
   presented to the very worst efforts in filmmaking.
   
   When he described his early liberal leanings, I could
   relate to much of what he said--particularly when he talked
   about Allard Lowenstein, one of my political heroes . . . how
   he transformed to become conservative kept my attention,
   as did his becoming increasingly aligned with Orthodox
   Judaism . . . and when he followed-up an unsuccessful
   first marriage with a loving second one, I found myself
   feeling glad for Medved.
   
   Parts of RIGHT TURNS are funny; much of it is thought-provoking.



5. I'm a little puzzled by some of the negative comments from reviewers regarding the book and, broadly speaking, the character of the author. I've just about finished the book and have found little in the way of blanket invectives that some accuse him of casting on "Liberals". Yes, he relentlessly attacks those who he finds to be disingenuous, self-servers (Vietnam war protesters - driven by fear of the draft more than the geopolitical consequences of the US military engagement), angry and intolerant radical secularists, and smug self-righteous Hollywood sycophants. But Medved goes out of his way to point out the decency and good-nature of a young Hillary Clinton; the sincerity and seriousness of Barbra Streisand as a mother seeking spiritual enrichment for her teenage son; and the fact that a high-level Clinton associate, Lanny Davis, is still one of his most valued friends.
   
   He is, no doubt, a passionate advocate for the values he's cultivated and informed in a very interesting lifetime of enthusiastic immersion in anything he seemed to stumble into. He can sometimes seem a little overbearing in his confidence and grand assertions - but I think any fair reading of this values-focused autobiography will find his intellectual and emotional honesty compelling whether or not ultimately convincing.
   
   Relax a little. Don't get caught up in eye-rolling even while he occasionally waxes eloquent on some credulity-straining events in his apparently charmed life and you'll be rewarded with a series of amusing stories, thought-provoking observations and an overall engaging read.

5 comments about Andrew Jackson: Symbol for an Age (Galaxy Books).

1. American democratic politics, as can be easily seen in this year's presidential nominating processes, has always been encumbered with symbols. That fact is hardly new or news. What is news is that today's seemingly modern notion of proper electoral technique has a fairly ancient pedigree. Although Parson Weems did more than his share to establish the iconic figure of George Washington, arguably the subject of this work, Andrew Jackson, really was the first president to get the full public relations `spin' treatment that we take as a matter of course in today's politics.
   
   The present volume builds the case for Jackson symbolic virtues at a time when America, after a series of nasty encounters with the British, notably the War of 1812, developed an inward look westward and away from the `degeneracy' of the seaboard. If Jackson did not fit the bill to a tee then his agents, paid or otherwise, filled in the blanks. First place in those efforts goes to highlighting his military prowess and soldierly concerns in defeating (to what real purpose no one knows since the war was over by this time) against the British at the tail end of the War of 1812 at the Battle of New Orleans.
   
   From there it was fairly simple to make him a man of the' people'. In this case the people being empathically not the residents of the eastern seaboard but the `fresh' yeomanry of the Westward trek. You know- the ones who exhibited all the plebian virtues as solid tillers of the soil, holders of folk wisdom against the effete nabobs of the cities and the true patriots of rising American agricultural capitalism. The author builds his case by using a series of fairly common references beginning his work with an analysis of a Jackson poetic tribute `The Hunters of Kentucky' and dissects that bit of work to see how it fit into the scheme of making Jackson the first "people's" president. All the other tributes and, at the end eulogies, then fall into place.
   
   If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery then his Whig opponents do that by learning from his handlers by the time of the `Tippecanoe' Harrison campaign of 1840. And from there we are off to the races. Note this- as if to reinforce the argument presented by the book- can anyone today deny that that myth built so long ago still, with the exception of a dent caused by his savagery against the Native Americans, stands as the way he is thought of in the American pantheon? The Democrats continue their traditional Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinners without blushing.



2. This quite readable book (if you read scholarly books) is possibly more relevant today than when it was written (in 1953). The author demonstrates how the concepts of Nature, God, and Will combined in the American imagination to provide the basis for beliefs about ourselves as a nation and our place in the world. The author doesn't explicitly draw a line from then-to-now (or even then-to-1953), but you will be able to draw that line yourself if you are an observer of American culture. If you are interested in current politics or the state of the nation today, read this book; you will understand more about how we got to where we are. It is not a biography of Andrew Jackson, but rather a carefully drawn picture of his times, using him, as the titles says, as a "symbol" for his era.



3. Reading this I am reminded of people you meet that talk just to hear themselves speak this book reminded me of those people. From the start you are engulfed in babble about Andrew Jackson. Even though this is considered a scholarly book, I feel that the writer just typed and typed and used words and sentences that were difficult to understand just to make himself sound important and intelligent. After reading this book I did not have a grasp on who Andrew Jackson was, but I did however know that I did not like the author.



4. My first impression of this book was that it was nothing more than rampant ramblings of senseless quibble. Once the reader understands that this is a psychoanalytical, socio-political, cultural and philosophical study of Andrew Jackson the man, versus the times he endured, it is truly an insightful work.
   Touted as a man of iron-will, determination and unbound democratic principles, Jackson was a man for the ages which he represented.
   Praised for his efforts in the Florida Indian battles and the Battle of New Orleans against the British (and denounced by some for his disregard for orders), he nonetheless came out on top of the situation for the people and his country.
   He exhibited qualities of the self-made man and this is what swayed his popularity. Jackson started from humble beginnings, and with his resolve and perceptiveness, became not only President of the United States for two terms, but was also looked up to as a hero with no self-limitations.



5. As one generation describes slices of history to another, the events and personalities are altered in the process. Ward shows how Jackson's persona emerged in the transfer of historical knowledge from one generation to the next.
   In earning a national reputation as a war hero in the Battle of New Orleans, Jackson credited God with the victory and saw himself as a chosen instrument in His hands.
   A city-wide religious ceremony was held in the aftermath of that victory. All New Orleans acknowledged humble thanksgiving to God for the successful defense of the city.
   Riding the crest of this military popularity Jackson was elected president and the masses who turned out for his inaugural events were unlike any other before him. His administration was a shift from the elite to a populous approach to government. Ward includes helpful anecdotes to keep the readers abreast of some of the details of the time and places covered.

5 comments about A Bed of Red Flowers: In Search of My Afghanistan.

1. A Bed of Red Flowers: In Search of My Afghanistan
   
   wasn't that interesting. Same story which allot of people put on the paper.



2. I left Afghanistan in 1979, a week before the Russians invaded and from that year on lost touch with everything that went on in my beautiful country. Nelofer's Bed of Red Flowers brought to life those years that I missed out on and always thought I will never know about; thank you so much Nelofer for this outstanding and vivid accounts of your life in Afghanistan, now I know how life was after I left.



3. A very good read.
   
   This is a true story that begins in Afghanistan in the mid seventies. It follows the members of an upper middle class family as they struggle to survive in their homeland; survive, despite a series of ever increasingly ruthless dictators, the Russian invasion and finally the Taliban.
   
   This book is beautifully written and easy to read; it has a wonderful descriptive quality to it that has the ability to provoke strong emotions. The book was hard to put down; I found myself wanting to read "just on more page, one more chapter".
   
   This story has an universal theme; it could be viewed as a testament to all common, oppressed people anywhere; people who'd like nothing more than to live in peace, but are prevented from doing so (through no fault of their own), because they get caught up in events caused by the ever changing whims of the "dictator de jour." Highly recommended. 5 Stars.



4. This book had so much potential, and I would have thought that since the author is a journalist, the writing would have been terrific. Unfortunately, the book does not quite live up to its potential and the writing is too weak to make this book interesting.
   
   The author attempts to describe her life in Afghanistan as a child and as a teen. Although this time period includes the time periods just prior to the Russian occupation, she includes very little about what life was like in Afghanistan during that time. There is a good deal of information regarding the time of the Russian occupation, but most of the writing is disjointed and disorganized. The story jumps around between time frames and is difficult to follow.
   
   The author does immigrate to Canada with her family, but there is almost no mention of her acclimation - if any - to this new country or any mention on the influence this country played on her life. It's almost like a black hole, and contributes to the feeling of the story being disjointed.
   
   As I read this book, I got the feeling the author wrote this book after the movie "Kandahar" was released and was hoping to ride the coattails of whatever fame the movie could make for her. I don't think the author truly thought this book out fully, and I think there are other books about Afghanistan by Afghans that are far better.



5. This book is a journal of a young woman (now a movie actor), born in Afghanistan, and her life as a child and teenager in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Canada. it is very disorganized, and does not give much analysis of the political problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan which cause such misery to her family and the population. Much description of squalid living. There does not seem to be much hope for Afghanistan, now that the educated people have left for safer countries.

5 comments about The Kennedys: An American Drama.

1. I was pretty disappointed. I have read a lot on individual Kennedys, and was looking for something to tie them all together. This book is very surface level, and practically ignores the women in the family. I know it is more interesting to cover the successful politicians (all male at the time of first publishing in 1984) and the drug abusers (apparently also all male, but still not sure), but a word or two about some of the other Kennedys would have been nice. For example, Eunice Kennedy Shriver, who founded the special olympics, gets only passing mention. All in all an interesting read, but mostly because the family (faults and successes) is so compelling, not because of the writing.



2. Heard the taped version of THE KENNEDYS: AN AMERICAN
   DREAM by Peter Collier and David Horowitz.
   
   This was a controversial NEW YORK TIMES bestseller when
   it was published in 1984, and I can see why . . . it tells the
   story of a dysfunctional family over three generations, centering
   around the elder Joseph Kenney and his wife Rose Fitzgerald . . . it then
   moves on to tell how his sons Jack and Bobby moved into the
   limelight via their careers in elected politics . . . and the book
   concludes with an account of Teddy's troubles, as well as those
   of the younger Kennedy children.
   
   Along the way there was adultery, drug usage (particularly by
   Jack during his presidency), alcoholism, and a variety of characters
   who mostly come across as not very lovable . . . perhaps only Lem
   Billings, JFK's best friend and subsequent family advisor, comes
   across in any sort of favorable light.
   
   My main criticism of THE KENNEDYS had to do with the last
   part . . . many of the younger Kennedys were portrayed in a negative
   fashion and though they may have had their difficulties while in
   school, several settled down and went on to careers in public
   service . . . consequently, I could have done without some
   of the dirt that seems to have been found.
   
   Yet that is probably what gives this book its appeal, so I'd
   recommend it if you want both the good and the bad about the
   Kennedy family . . . in addition, the narration by Joseph
   Campanella was outstanding and added to my enjoyment
   of listening to this tale about a dynasty that had to face
   so much tragedy over the years.



3. I read this book in 1984 and found it quite relevant and enlightening at the time. I am glad that the third generation has gotten itself together and are doing good things.
   
   I have also notice that any books written after Jackie's death have a wealth of information! President Kennedy is a real person (not some far off statesman). Jackie's plus and minuses are explored and she becomes human too! The way she raised Caroline and John was amazing and they seemed to have avoided any of the pitfalls of their other cousins. Except the most devastating one of course and that was will always be a great tragedy of a young life unfinished.
   
   Another excellent book written at the same time is Doris Goodwin's: The Fitzgeralds and the Kennedys: An American Saga. John B. Davis, Jackie's first cousin has written serveral books on Jackie, Kennedy's and the Mafia. You will not be disappointed.



4. Well written and engaging, the book surveys three generations of Kennedys over four sections, beginning with how Joseph Patrick Kennedy shaped his family and gave his sons a calling (Architect of Their Lives) then moves on to how his sons Jack and Bobby developed their public careers following Joe, Jr.'s death in WWII (The Stand In) then moving to the peak Kennedy years of Jack's Presidency and Bobby's campaign (Brothers Within). The drama ends as both a sad farce describing Teddy's troubles and as a tragedy invading the lives of the lost generation of Kennedy children (The Lost Boys).
   
   The book centers, as did the family, around the elder Joseph Kennedy and his wife, the queenly Rose Fitzgerald. JPK's generosity and his sincerity surprise the reader given his raw ambition, his selfishness, his manipulation of people, his womanizing, and his incompetence as a diplomat. All this was equaled only by his talent as a business man and in the end surpassed by his devotion as a father. On the other hand, Rose comes off rather dry and unappealing, which is a little difficult to believe given that she had nine children.
   
   A disturbing revelation of the book was how high on drugs (usually prescribed) Jack was during his presidency. His awful health mandated pain killers and other drug therapies to allow him to function, but at the same time must have affected his judgment and his ability to work. Given the confrontational character of the Kennedys, one shudders to think of how badly the Cuban crisis could have turned out.
   
   I have two strong criticism of the book. First, not enough space is given to JPK's most important contribution to the United States: he created and established the Securities and Exchange Commission, which gave the USA for decades a virtual monopoly on fair and transparent financial markets. (President Roosevelt apparently responded to critics of this appointment that "it takes a crook to catch a crook".)
   
   Second, in the interest of protecting privacy, the material on the last Kennedy generation should have been left out. The book was published in 1984 when the lost Kennedys were still in their teens and twenties. The authors needlessly (though with sympathy) sensationalized sad stories, at too early a time in those lives to pass any sort of critical judgment.
   
   The most interesting discovery for me was Lem Billings. He basically followed all three generations: best friend to Jack Kennedy, reassuring JPK that his son had someone supporting him outside the family, and surrogate father to some of the young Kennedys after Bobby's assassination until his death in the early 80s. A short book on Billings would be welcome.



5. One of the first things you will see are family-trees at the beginning of every part, where you can see all the members of the family, their children and their birth- and deathdates. Unfortunately for the Kennedy family many died prematurely, as is well recognized.
   
   Most Kennedy books will be focused on John F and his brother Robert F who were both shot. But in this book they still play main parts, but not the only ones. The book starts when the Kennedy's, and Fitzgeralds, came to America and how they quickly rose in first Boston and later American society, even though they had one big disadvantage; they were Irish.
   
   JFK's grandfather Honey Fitz became mayor of Boston by using the Irish vote. Joe Kennedy Sr. started out selling newspapers but was soon a movie producer, even having an alleged affair with movie star Gloria Swanson, something his sons would later copy with Marylin Monroe of course.
   
   Then came the biggest move in Joe Kennedy's life; he became Ambassador in England under Roosevelt, with whom he had a somewhat strained relationship. He would ever since be referred to as the Ambassador, even in his own family.
   
   Collier and Horowitz make it clear that the Ambassador is the most important member of the Kennedy family and that every child's actions are in some way related to him. The story is sometimes a little TV-movie sentimental, but whould would you do if you lose 4 children when you are still alive. The oldest son Joe dies in a WWII plane crash, his oldest daughter marries but loses her noble husband soon and dies herself in a plane crash a few months later.
   
   And of course there are the deaths of JFK and RFK.
   
   It's certainly not a hagiography telling how great the Kennedy's were. Old Joe Kennedy is sometimes shown as a towering figure who completely dominated his family's life until his stroke. JFK got his last rites twice and was often very sick with pain in his back and Addisson's desease. His medication is mentioned in the book and also are his numorous flings with women in the White House, his own house, even Airforce One. RFK seems to have been the most moral person and I believe the authors feel that way too. They explain his religion, his fight against organized crime and Jimmy Hoffa and also his meetings with minorities all over the world. He seemed to have had the Kennedy promise even more than his brother Jack or later Ted.
   
   The last part of the book is devoted to the next generation who cannot seem to deal with their heritage and often get into trouble, it seems as if everyone in the family is doing drugs, the last Kennedy death in the old edition, even loses his life because of it.
   
   It's a gripping story that sometimes reads like a novel. I think it gave a balanced story of the family with the good but also the bad, which made them even more human. It's a lot clearer now why the family was so loved and hated at the same time.
   
   A must-read for Kennedy-admirer and Kennedy-hater alike.

5 comments about The Conscience of a Liberal: Reclaiming the Compassionate Agenda (Minnesota).

1. For every good and fair minded person to read. It really opened my eyes.



2. I am disappointed in this book. I expected something more philosophical and/or well written. I admire Wellstone's work as a politician but find his writing rather mediocre. American history and politics are my meat and bread. This book does not meet my standards. I usually buy books since I'm a bookaholic, but i wish I had borrowed this from the library. It does not meet my standards.



3. I was a great admirer of Paul Wellstone ever since the fall of 1990. Although I have lived in Minnesota since 2001, in 1990 I was a college sophomore in another state who was writing a paper studying the 1990 elections. I follwed the 1990 Minnesota Senate race, and was pleasantly surprised when he went against the predominate "conventional wisdom" and scored an upset victory (he was the ONLY Democrat to defeat an incumbent that year).
   For someone like me, who has been quite frankly sick and tired of the right-ward drift of the Democratic Party and the "play it safe" convetnional wisdom, Paul Wellstone was the antidote.
   I enjoyed the autobiographical narrative of this book, it brought back a lot of memories. I enjoyed his frank discussion of the inner working of the US Senate, and I especially enjoyed the later chapters where he offered hope for a people-centered, progressive politics.



4. Great book that begins where he was in college and how he and his wife met and how they became the activists they were and what a real progressive is or at least should be. And that being a liberal is nothing to be ashamed of! Sadly the Senator died in 2002 just before he would have been reelected to the Senate. Some of us still believe it wasn't the innocent accident some say that killed him when the plane he was on went down.
   
   Having said that let me rave about this book. I go to Chapter 9 titled A Winning Progressive Politics, where the author notes 'A progressive politics is a winning politics, as long as it is not organized in a way that is top-down and elitist. It must respect the capacity of ordinary citizens and focus on workaday majority issues. I have never understood arguments for the need for politicians to 'move to the center' to get elected. What is the operational definition of 'the center'? If what is meant is that you need to have more votes than your opponent, then I am all for being in the center. But this is too obvious. If what is meant by the center is the dominant mood of the populace -- the issues that are important issues to Americans and what they hope for--then I would again argue for the need to occupy the center. A politics that is not sensitive to the concerns and circumstance of peoples lives, a politics that does not speak to include people is an intellectually arrogant politics that deserves to fail.'
   
   Page 206 of the same chapter 'Clearly, there is a forgotten American majority. It is precisely this America that our politics today fails to serve fully and fairly. This America faces major challenges: low wages, insufficient health care, nonexistent pension coverage (the majority if private sector workers have no pension coverage), daunting child care expenses, rising college expenses, and exorbitant housing costs. These Americans can't hire lobbyists. They can't fly senators and congressmen to resorts. They don't fill the campaign coffers of political candidates. Only when these Americans are given proportional voice in politics can we claim to live in a truly representative democracy.'
   
   Page 208 'Not only do Democrats have too timid and downsized an agenda, we also have failed to confront conservatives on core value questions. I call the Republicans' philosophy the 'New Isolationism.' Not as in foreign affairs, but in human affairs. It is a 'Buddy, your're on your own' philosophy. If you are losing your family farm, if you can't afford prescription drugs, if you have no health insurance, if you are working forty hours a week but are still poor and unable to support your children, if you are a homeless Vietnam veteran struggling with mental problems, you're on your own. Whatever happened to 'There but for the grace if God go I'? Or 'Love they neighbor as thyself'? We need to replace isolationism with fellowship. We need to talk about community, about justice, about the goodness of America. People are ready for a politics that inspires them to be their best'.
   
   Thus this book is rich with common sense honesty that I want more Democrats to read and follow, rather than the disoriented, weak kneed, stand for NOTHING nonsense the Democrats are giving us now. This book should be a must read for anyone who dislikes with a passion the special interest, elitist administration, congress and senate we now have.



5. This is the type of feel good no meat and potatos thinking that permiates the liberal left. An agenda designed to fail from start to finish because the author refuses to accept the reality that regardless of what you do money does not solve problems, accountability does.

5 comments about Autobiography (Penguin Classics).

1. I read this book for a graduate Mill seminar in Philosophy. Recommended reading for anyone interested in philosophy, political science, and history.
   
   John Stuart Mill, 1806-73, worked for the East India Co. helped run Colonial India from England. Minister of Parliament 1865-68 he served one term.
   
   I have to say that I found Mill's Autobiography left me wanting to read a good biography of him in order to learn more about his personal life and interaction with family and friends. He certainly did not reveal himself in the way Jean Jacques Rousseau did in his much-ballyhooed autobiography The Confessions. I do understand that his wife Harriett edited the autobiography to the extent that there is no mention of Mill's mother in it. Other than his education and his reference to taking walks with his father to talk about books he had read, he says little about their relationship. In addition, there is only a passing reference to having to serve as schoolmaster to his siblings while he was an adolescent and he does not mention them again. Mill spent most of his adulthood working for the East India Company; however, he says little about that experience in his autobiography. It seems he had few friends as an adult, if you go by his autobiography. There is a brief reference about his friendship with George Grote, the eminent historian of Greek history. Thus, the impression that I got of Mill the man was one of an emotionally cold person socially except to his wife Harriett, who I believe was the only person in his life he truly loved. Most of his autobiography is dedicated to his education; such as, books he had read or written and philosophers he was influenced by, and this is a part of his life that I found most interesting.
   
   In Mill's autobiography, he tells readers how he benefited and suffered from having one of the most unique educational experiences known to humankind. His father was personally involved in both his education and that of his other siblings He was a brilliant student who read Greek by the age of three and Latin at eight years old. By the time he matured to adulthood, he was extremely well read. Thus, he received an academically rigorous education at home, and I find that his education really defined and shaped his character. Providing and improving education for all humans was a cornerstone of his philosophical belief in Utilitarianism. Education meant that people could develop their higher pleasures; a concept that Mill thought was of paramount importance to increase one's happiness. He invented this concept and differed with Jeremy Bentham, the progenitor of Utilitarianism, on this point. Bentham did not believe there was a qualitative property to happiness--Mill did. Thus, it is no mystery that in adulthood he developed very strong views on the advantages that universal education would have on improving people's characters. Mill believed universal education would lead to fostering social change for the betterment of all mankind. He stayed consistent on this belief throughout his life. He gave what I think was one of the great speeches on education and character formation in 1867 after accepting the position as Rector of the University of St. Andrews. In his Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St. Andrews, one of the points that he made in his speech was the responsibility that universities had in building their students' characters. He also wrote about the importance of character formation had on the ability for people to enjoy freedom in society in his book On Liberty. However, he personally found that his education had come at a great price to his emotional well-being.
   
   During the winter of 1826 and into 1827 while in his early twenties, Mill recognized that he was suffering from a bout with depression. This is the only portion of his autobiography where Mill exposes his inner emotions to his readers. He believed his depression stemmed from an inadequacy in his education. He came to realize that although his father provided him a superior education on many intellectual levels, it was negligent in social contact with children of his own age, and did not prepare him emotionally for interaction with other members of society. His parents and visitors treated him as an adult from early childhood. Mill realized that his upbringing led up to his inability to feel a normal range of human emotions; thus, he felt detached from humanity. Mill found that reading poetry by Wordsworth in 1828 ultimately broke his depression. In poetry, Mill found that he could feel sorrow, and sympathize with others.
   
   I found this part of his autobiography of importance for three reasons. First, it is the only painful human emotional event in his life that he divulges to his readers. Secondly, it is an indication of the importance that the concept of sympathy played in his life and formed his philosophical views as well. Mill understood the need for humans to be sympathetic to one another. Sympathy is required for social interaction and is a useful character trait that we use in order to keep us from harming each other. Thirdly, without his awakening of this emotion in his life, I seriously doubt that he would have found the capacity to love his wife Harriett in the manner that he did. One does get the sense from his description of her that she was his true soul mate and only real long lasting friend in his life.
   
   Mill's friendship with Harriett while she was married to another man, caused them both to endure scandalous gossip, even though they both denied there relationship had any sexual component to it. When they eventually married each other about two years after she became a widow, Mill stayed true to his life long conviction in believing in equal rights for women. During Mill's time, married women's property automatically devolved to their husband and he correctly saw this as one more inequity against women placed on them by society. Therefore, on the day when he married Harriett Taylor in 1851, a financially secure widow, he wrote a formal renunciation to all of her property in protest against the current law. He was a life long feminist who wrote in his essay The Subjection of Women, about the scathing inequalities that women endured since the history of mankind had been chronicled. I have no doubt that his essay paved the way in changing marriage and divorce laws and fostered the improvement of relations between the sexes. He was also the first Member of Parliament to introduce a bill in the Commons to enfranchise women. He worked tirelessly at the end of his life, supporting women's rights with his pen and his purse. His stepdaughter Helen carried on his feminist work by becoming a leader in the suffragist movement in her own right.
   
   In total, I would say that although the Autobiography provides scant information into Mill's daily life, when he does reveal himself, it appears he consistently lived up to his philosophical teachings and beliefs.



2. This book is so wonderful on so many different levels that to give it a review at all would be a disservice. My recommendation is not on whether or not to read it but instead on how to read it. I suggest a quiet room, comfortable chair or couch, cup of coffee and a few hours of uninterrupted reading time. After completing the book, rest and repeat as desired.



3. Mill's remarkable childhood education prepared him to be one of the leading intellectuals of his day (far surpassing his father, James Mill, who was no slouch, but not in his son's league) but while I admire his erudition and achievements, one has to wonder if the deep depression he fell into in his mid-20s had something to do with that.
   
   Mill's contributions are better remembered than many of the other famous British intellectuals of the period--such as Herbert Spencer--whose particularly invidious version of the theory of Social Darwinism is best left languishing in obscurity. Who today remembers the prolific Spencer, whose collected works run to over 20 large volumes?
   
   Mill is frank about his depression and how debilitating it was, and what a struggle it was to pull through it. But with the help of his best friend, he pulled out of it and went on to write many important works in philosophy, logic, political science, and economics.
   
   Mill's I.Q. was certainly very high (estimated by psychologist Katherine Cox using a modified ratio I.Q. method to be at least 200), but very likely his father's misguided efforts to produce a prodigy and homegrown, British Wunderkind (to compete with the legendary "Infant of Lubeck," no doubt :-)) were the cause of his long, serious depression.
   
   Mill's text on econonics, which was called Political Economy back in those days (also the title of his book, if I remember right), was the longest running and most successful college text of all time, being used for the next 50 years until the 1920s when the "New Economics" of the day, championed by the field of microeconomics and the theory of the firm, made a more modern, updated text necessary.
   
   For me the most interesting part of the book was Mill's theory of history, with positive periods of creative cultural development being followed by periods of negation and dissolution. Mill summarizes it as follows (I think I'm remembering the quote more or less accurately): "During the positive periods mankind adopts with conviction some positive creed, claiming jurisdiction for all their actions proceeding from it, and possessing more or less of the truth and adaptation to the needs of humanity; when a period follows of negation and dissolution, during which mankind loses its old beliefs, of a general and authoritative character, except the belief that the old are false." Mills theory has parallels to the earlier Hegel's historical dialectic and later to Oswald Spengler's theory, and to later 20th century historian Arnold Toynbee's idea of "challenge and response."
   
   For another more literary (and probably more interesting) take on depression by another British intellectual, you might try Richard Burton's The Anatomy of Melancholy (not to be confused with the African explorer by the same name). After all, anyone who says that "Giraffes live for love," not to mention palm trees, can't be all bad. :-)



4. Ever wonder for which bipolar monomaniac the Sorcerer's Apprentice worked? Now you know. Drier than Dryden, boot-licking admirer of the thief of his childhood, humorless bookworm of a dusty aristocrat, protonerd ex machina in extremis. When Continent-lazing navel-gazers concern themselves with improving society, oil your firearms. I'd rather a deep belly laugh than Mill's musings, any day.



5. John Stuart Mill was raised by his father to be his intellectual heir, and a great genius. There is something moving about the care taken by the father to teach his wunderkind son all that he knew. The father was with Jeremy Bentham the guiding spirit of the philosophical movement Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism was a mechanical kind of philosophy which thought it possible to measure the goodness of action by measuring the amount of pleasure against the amount of pain. Mill followed the path his father set out from him, adopted his father's values and social conscience and was already by the tender age of twenty a distinguished intellectual figure. But then he asked himself the question if the realization of all his social schemes and all the grand social ideals would bring him happiness. And he understood that it would not. He understood in other words that all this focus on outward good and action, on mechanical measures for human life was missing some vital component in life and in himself. Mill went into a great depression. What brought him out was the reading of the poetry of Wordsworth and the understanding that there is a dimension of feeling, a dimension of the inner life which is somehow more important than all the social thought. This did not mean that Mill abandoned the path of social reform but rather that he changed its direction. Part of this change had to do with his meeting his relationship with Harriet Taylor, his embracing in a certain sense of liberal ideas on the role of women in society. Mill found himself and continued on his intellectual path, a path which would lead him to produce one of the masterpieces of modern political thought, "On Liberty ".

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 Stalin in Power: The Revolution from Above, 1928-1941.

1. Reading this book gives one insight not only on Stalin but also on the political system that he constructed around his personality. Its effects are still being felt in today's Russia--much of Stalin's struggle with his identity and place in the world was and still is mirrored by the Russian state itself. Tucker is a masterful storyteller; one comes away with a great sense of both the historical moment and the political weight of the subject matter. This book should still be required reading for anyone who wants to understand the Russian political system.



2. Over the years, I have read a number of books on Stalin, some good and some awful and I am convinced that this book, along with Professor Tucker's other work, "Stalin as a Revolutionary" is the best work on this subject (Adam Ulam's work would be the best one volume study of Stalin).
   
   What sets this book apart from the others is Tucker's first rate understanding of Stalin and the world in which he operated. Only someone as stubborn as Stalin could have imagined he was creating paradise on earth while at the same establishing one of the most hellish regime's in world history and Tucker captures him in all of his evil. Even though he is a widely respected actademic, Tucker writes in such a way as to make this 20th century monster understandable to expert and beginner alike.
   
   The only complaint that I have is that Tucker has yet to follow through with the next part of Stalin's career. It seems to be truism of late that no one can complete a multi-volume work on one of the leaders of World War II. Kenneth Davis was unsuccessful in his magnificent FDR biography as was William Manchester in his attempt to capture Churchill in his series of books on the great prime minister. I am only hoping that wealth of material that has become available with the fall of communism and the Soviet Union does not hamper Professor Tucker's efforts.



3. This is an excellent biography of Stalin, the middle book in a proposed trilogy. Tucker weaves events in the Soviet Union around the twisted, paranoid personality of Joseph Stalin, former seminary student. What I found to be the most intriguing was how every time Stalin changed his mind about something, everyone had to fall in line or risk being labeled a "wrecker" or "counter-revolutionary." Stalin was not particularly brilliant, and he was not Lenin's choice as a successor, but he had a genius for bureacratic maneuvering that put him in the powerful position that he held for years. For all his paranoia and all the damage he did to Russia, it is amazing that someone didn't actually knock him off. It is a chilling reflection on how obsequious even the best of us can be when motivated by fear.



4. Neither Stalin, the collectivization crisis, nor the terror suffer from a dearth of good and serious studies. Yet despite the crowded field, Tucker's "Stalin in Power" is by far the best treatment of all three complex events. No other book sets out as credible, well-researched and well considered a theory of the workings of Stalin's mind. The great challenge presented by the Soviet thirties is the comprehension of the real logic behind what appears from the outside as mass irrationality. Most writers' personal models of depth and social psychology are inadequate to the task. Tucker succeeds, by a significant margin.



5. Tucker's careful storytelling hews to historical facts and grippingly narrates Stalin's creeping domination of the Soviet idea. This book is complete. A must read for all interested in recent Russian history.

5 comments about The Secret Man: An American Warrior's Uncensored Story.

1. I have a simple question:
   Whether or not this book is factual, should we not, as readers, think first about how good the book is as a story rather than a documentary?
   It seems to me that most people fail to realize a good story when they look into the truth and facts about it. Sometimes you have to forget you are in this "real" world and let yourself go to a world where everything is real and nothing is real. I guess what I'm really trying to say is: This book is meant for enjoyment not education, so stop making it so!



2. The Publishers Weekly Review is so apparently off base and tainted it is painfully obvious it was crafted by someone who is politically bias or has a personal axe to grind. What else could it be with the reviewer willfully making false and misleading statements that are contrary to the readily observable facts; intentionally and deceptively declaring there is no substantiated or supportive evidence of Dux claims when the proof exists and is presented in the book!
   
   Aside from Frank Dux and his book being vindicated by revealing current events, shamefully, Publisher's Weekly fails to mention that various Official Government Documents that are officially notarized by the appropriate military authority as well as a sworn notarized testimony given by a Soviet Major General Korneinko (made under penalty of perjury) corroborate Dux story. Included are Soviet Identification papers of Dux. They are all presented in the photo section of the book for anyone to examine. Substaintiated evidence that pales in comparison to the common sense fact such reference books are as a matter of professional standards and practices vetted by a publisher's (HarperCollins) lawyers long before ever being allowed to go to print. Facts and claims are routinely checked and double checked. Unlike one critic of Dux whose source is a book that is self-published and relies on sources that all stand to financially profit by discrediting Dux. At least, this is what my own independent investigation revealed.
   
   Notably, Publisher's Weekly cleverly skirts their legal exposure (libel) by stating in doing their review they did not see the photos in the book. Indeed, how could they miss them? As a direct result I feel they are not to be trusted. I have lost all faith in their integrity or at least this one reviewer. Someone dropped the ball here or made it up as they go. This is a book you should feel privileged to read if you can find it.



3. if you.re looking for some ninjitsu techniques or action, its not something like that... but this man has some abilities that is used by his country...



4. Fortunately, I don't take anything at face value. Otherwise, I would miss out on a truly enlightening and factually informative book. Some of the comments that I read after reading the book I find are out of touch with reality, not the other way around.
   
   Great read as I had anticipated would be the case back, in 1996. When you stop to consider the CIA official policy is that fiction is never in need of denial combined with the fact that if there existed no controversy surrounding this book, the author wouldn't be a CIA whistleblower, would he? Otherwise, why would a government agency feel so compelled to officially issue a statement and deny Dux's activities or Eugene Hausenfaus's or the CIA's Cuban "plumbers" role apprehended in bugging the democratic national convention, the Watergate? The systematic pattern of behavior of denying what we suspect to be true at the time proves its real in my mind. "I think, thou'st CIA does't protest it too much!" Especially, since eight years have gone by and the denials given back then were eventually found out to be lies and spin control.
   
   Any person who calls attention to them self by calling attention to abuses of power are bound to become the targets of personal attacks. This is what the intelligence community is entirely dependent upon in order to survive. What they describe as plausible deniability. No fraud or fanciful reading going on here just our government and its friends hard at work at attempting to keep us ignorant and their friends out of jail.
   
   This guy has got brass balls! Frank Dux's reveals the FBI and CIA engaging in abuses of power by their involving themselves in the political process of our free elections. Discrediting potential political candidates as well as whistle-blowers, like himself (pgs 66-69). Thankfully, someone cares enough to speak out.
   
   This book reminded me that the freedom the world enjoys today only occurred because of the willingness of the few to bend a few laws and risk imprisonment to fight and carryout this nation's secret wars, in the 1980's. Just like what is going on in Iraq, Semper Fi, my brothers!
   
   It was a great read. I find it comical that I actually came across people that will say they read the book and then will chastise it and refer you to the same sources that Dux exposes in his book that are proven to be self-admitted liars guilty of having fabricated testimony and evidence against him, or nuns, etc. Making it painfully obvious they never read the book when you embarrass them by asking please "re-read that section" and tell me what you think of that... LOL.
   
   Why are people directing people to what in reality is a self-published author that is, at least apparent to me, relying on sensationalism to sell his own book.
   
   Dux deserves to be read as he stands up to and wont be bullied by persons who wield political power for their own gain and who under the color of authority committed heinous crimes against humanity.
   
   It's no surprise to me that General Singlaub (who is the former Chairman of the fascist organization, WACL, that is affiliated with the Bulgarian Nazi party, Ku Klux Klan, and other hate groups), was implicated by Dux as a suspected war criminal (allegedly, responsible for overseeing the executions of 20,000 civilians in Laos, Vietnam and Cambodia), and who was forced to resign by President Carter. I recall how Congressional Medal of Honor, Lt. Colonel Herbert, US Army and his book "Soldier" became the target of a propaganda/perception management campaign carried out by, you guessed it, the fascist critics of WACL.
   
   Informative and an insightful read that connects the dots for me between certain historical events. I believe people are motivated more out of jealousy and greed than some CIA conspiracy to stop this book from being circulated.
   
   You have to be ill informed or a complete idiot to consider it is just a matter of pure coincidence that, Lt. Commander, Richard Marcinko, USN, the founder of the elite anti-terrorist platoon, SEAL team 6, and his book, Rouge Warrior, was trashed in exactly the same calculated manner and by the very same people. What are they afraid of? Like Marcinko's book, this is the real deal. Otherwise, no one would care.
   
   After I read the book The Secret Man and did my own due diligence, shame on Publishers Weekly. I would have eagerly purchased it instead of coming across it by chance, if not for their "off the cuff" review. The only discernable reason for not being able to tell if Dux was posturing from creating a work of fantasy, as Publishers Weekly states, is made obvious to me or anyone else who has actually read the book. Apparently, the person charged with reviewing it either never bothered to read it or merely skimmed the work and couched their comments, placing it and Dux in a questionable light, in order to conceal their own dereliction of duty if not incompetence or political leanings. I had no difficulty in corroborating his statements of fact as being true. Five stars as it was informative while entertaining, I couldn't put it down.



5. Frank Dux has been exposed as a liar and a fraud in several mediums. The Los Angeles Times first exposed Dux as a fraud after the movie Bloodsport was released. After The Secret Man came out, author B.G. Burkett examined Dux's military records which reveal that Dux never left California during his less than 6 months with the Marine Corps. You can read the entire, bizarre, and sad account in Burkett's book, Stolen Valor. Dux's entire military career as a secret operative is a total fantasy.

2 comments about Thomas Jefferson: Westward the Course of Empire (Biographies in American Foreign Policy).

1. Kaplan debunks the theory that Jefferson was an idealist in foreign affairs. Jefferson was pragmatic on what he wanted. He was for the United States, and thus made alliances based on what was best for our country. Even though he thought the French Revolution was justified, his reason for supporting the French was as a counterweight to Great Britain. Jefferson may have been accused of some silly things such as the embargo and trying to cozy up to Great Britain at the last minute, but his actions were that of a nationlist, and not an idealist.
   
   The language in this book is a little stilted. In some places, it is hard to read. However, this book gives a good summary of Jefferson's foreign policy.



2. Kaplan clearly likes Jefferson. His recounting of Jefferson's foreign policy tend to give Jefferson the benefit of the doubt. This book is very informational and fairly short at around 200 pages. I harbor many Jeffersonian ideological thoughts, however, I'd have preferred Kaplan to be a bit more critical of some of Jefferson's actions. Even so, the book still stands out as a good survey of Jefferson's foreign policy. 3 stars for a good book- but not exceptional.