5 comments about The Americanization of Benjamin Franklin.

1. I, like most, know the ideolized stories of Ben Franklin and use many of his quotes in my email messages, but it was the recent HBO miniseries of John Adams that got me more interested in the man himself. Gordon Wood is one of my favorite historians when it comes to the Revolution and it was a no brainer for me to pick up this book.
   
   Though it lacked with depth in many areas, it was a good starting point for further reading on the man. Where Wood fails is where he actually succeeds. His analysis of certain events did lack depth (his failure), but his use of events as they pertain to Franklin were very good (his success). It gave me a better understanding of the connections Franklin had with England (the working man attempting to become a gentleman in a British world that in many ways refused to accept him as such), his love of France (that truly embraced him), and his at best questionable memory in the American mind throughout the 19th Century. It is the final few chapters of the book that are by far the most interesting aspects of the book. The discussion of the strained relationship Franklin had in the nation he helped to create, his confrontations with Adams, and most importantly the struggles America had in its recognition of Franklin.
   
   Though Wood does lack depth in many areas, this book is well written and should be the starting point for anyone wanting to learn more about a man who has so much myth and legend surrounding him.



2. The author does an excellent job of placing Franklin in the context of his time, and explaining his motives. There is an interesting account of what it meant to be a gentleman in the eighteenth century, and its significance to Franklin. The book is highly readable and not overly long.



3. When I saw Gordon Wood on Ben Franklin I thought look out! It's going to be like Ann Coulter on Bill Clinton. I was almost afraid to read because I adore Franklin so much. Alas, nothing new, nothing. (Spoiler!!!!!) Yes Ben cheated on his wife with numerous women, seduced wives, and may have even sold secrets to the British (that last one cannot necessarily be proven). But all Gordon did was write a GREAT little summary about the life of a great man. So why did I only give him only three stars? Well, when you see Mike Tyson you want to see a Pitbull off its leash. When I read Gordon Wood.... I want history off its leash. Now you know what to expect. Enjoy



4. This is a well written story about Franklin with interesting insights on How Franklin evolved from being a lover of England, to becoming "American." The process evolved over Franklin's lifetime. Franklin had to undergo embarassment by England's political elite til he realized that England was not so benevolent to the colonies. There were moments I was wondering if Franklin was a Tory. But like a magician, Franklin changed his tune and became so radicalized that it ended up being an inspiration to others to bring the colonies together and declare independence from England. This was a well balanced biography that pointed out Franklin's warts along with his good points. I was impressed how fast the book read and how packed with info. I would highly recommend this to anyone looking at insights during the early formation of the United States.



5. Gordon Wood's biography of Benjamin Franklin doesn't give you any earth shattering new details, but the book is concise and well written. Wood takes you from Franklin's early life and loyalty to England through his transformation and realization that the American Colonies were going to rebel. Franklin's love for France (and for the women of France) are clear in this book as the author clearly argues that Franklin loved living in Paris and everything about that city. The author also argues that Franklin seemed to have a "love hate" relationship with the colonies as he saw opportunities, but he also saw the refined world of France and its cities such as Paris as something he was drawn to and preferred.
   
   It is a good read and I have grown to understand Benjamin Franklin a bit more. He was a diplomat, a scientist, an inventor and a more complex man than we sometimes like to admit and the author brings these points out in the book.

2 comments about Abraham Lincoln: The Observations of John G. Nicolay and John Hay.

1. The book was very short and only covered areas of limited interest on Lincoln's Presidency. Beside other titles on Lincoln that I have bought this was a major disappointement. There was no flow of quality prose to create interest in specific story lines which were too sketchy. The book's objectives were too limited from the outset and it's main merits are that it may serve as a useful reference book for later purchases. It will do little to add or detract to the legacy of Lincoln.
   Lorenzo
   Ireland



2. A book for the person with an existing fair understanding of the White House years of Abraham Lincoln.
   
   Professor Burlingame provides a great service to those of us who are keenly interested in this great president, but who do not have the time to read the imposing and very dated ten-volume history produced by his two close aides, Nicolay and Hay. This book fills a specific void; it certainly should not be confused with a full biography.
   
   While it is surprising that so little was directly said by Nicolay and Hay about their chief in their history, I am happy that Professor Burlingame did the hard work of mining its ten volumes for the benefit of lazy readers like me.

5 comments about Reagan: A Life In Letters.

1. "Reagan, A Life In Letters," is the first book that I have read on President Ronald Reagan and it has nearly confounded me of how little I knew of our 40th U.S. President. He was so much different and such a better person than he was portrayed by the news media. He was an intelligent, compassionate patriot who really loved the United States of America. I was so impressed by the book that I purchased three additional copies and gave them away as gifts. I also purchased three different books about President and Mrs Reagan that I am looking forward to starting.



2. After all the sneering put downs from the leftist elitists, we can see the truth of a great man, in his own words. Almost singlehanded, he led the revolt of the common man against the elitists who would steal the common man's liberty for crass political gain. The revolution continues.



3. If you are expecting intricate epistles along the lines of Paul the Apostle or C. S. Lewis Collected Letters of C.S. Lewis - Box Set, forget about it. Sixty percent of this book is small (almost jotted) memos. It is nice to see that Reagan kept in contact with people, and that he nudged his relationships along with these small bundles. But as a presidential source book, we could have done with less. The book could have been half as long, and therefore twice as effective.
   
   If you are looking for sources on Reaganism, then I recommend Speaking My Mind: Selected Speeches and Reagan, In His Own Hand: The Writings of Ronald Reagan That Reveal His Revolutionary Vision for America. We get interesting policy letters about once every 25 pages or so. The gems are his correspondence with Nixon and Brezhnev. Plus we have a lot of material from the Governator years. These are key, since one does not go from GE spokesman to Leader of the Free World in one bound. We see the Reagan we all know love and . . . developing in the California Crucible.
   
   I think the biggest surprise was the section on pen pals. Instead of Ronaldus Magnus, we see Ronnie, all around good egg. Many of these letters are folksy, dealing with human problems, and occasionally we get Reagan's insight into current events--Lt. Calley, Charles Manson, and Sirhan Sirhan. Several letters are personal response to his critics. His firm but gentle way of rebuking a misinformed foe serves for a universal lesson.
   
   Favorite Letter: page 664.
   
   Andy Smith, a seventh-grader in Irmo, S.C., wrote the President in 1984, "Today my mother declared my bedroom a disaster area. I would like to request federal funds to hire a crew to clean up my room."
   
   Dear Andy:
   
   I'm sorry to be so late in answering your letter but as you know I've been in China . . .
   
   Your application for disaster relief has been duly noted but I must point out one technical problem; the authority declaring the disaster is supposed to make the request. In this case your mother.
   
   However setting that aside I'll have to point out the larger problem of available funds. This has been a year of disasters, 539 hurricanes as of May 4th and several more since, numerous floods, forest fires, drought in Texas and a number of earthquakes. What I'm getting at is that funds are dangerously low.
   
   May I make a suggestion? This administration, believing that government has done many things that could better be done by volunteers at the local level, has sponsored a Private Sector Initiative program, calling upon people to practice voluntarism in the solving of a number of local problems.
   
   Your situation appears to be a natural. I'm sure your mother was fully justified in proclaiming your room a disaster. Therefore you are in an excellent position to launch another volunteer program to go along with the more than 3,000 already underway in our nation--congratulations . . .
   
   Sincerely,
   Ronald Reagan
   
   
   Priceless!!!
   
   *
   
   This book should be part of the Essential Reagan Cannon. Along with "Speaking My Mind" and "In His Own Hand," this book should be read with The Reagan Diaries, An American Life, Ronald Reagan: A Life in Politics and In the Words of Ronald Reagan: The Wit, Wisdom, and Eternal Optimism of America's 40th President. I also recommend Reagan: Man of Principle, for insight on the elusive Governator years.



4. This review is not probably going to be what one would think for someone who loved Ronald Reagan, because this book was written for people who ignorantly thought he was "the most dangerous man in America".
   That is the focus of this book in being 'Legacy' which was what his family, friends and administration were dealing with in releasing this book. We knew President Reagan was brilliant, wise, caring, God fearing, moral and a world leader who only comes along in a generation to transform the world, but these letters were meant to convince the narrow minded how wrong they were about him.
   For someone who adores this gentle man, I found it startling in reading he names Jane Fonda and her husband a traitor, how Democrats lied to gain power while the nation suffered in mirror image of what just happened to Bush 43 and his insight that Jimmy Carter would be a disaster and was a phoney before he even took office. The reason that was startling is Reagan was right about Star Wars, was right about how to topple the Soviet Union without a nuclear war and was right how the key to eastern Europe's freedom was religion, so Reagan being always proven correct has deeper meaning for all of history in his naming people traitors and phoneys.
   His greatest warning in his letters today are the dangers of a national health care system which will ruin American health care and how it is only a power grab by socialists to gain more control over America for their rule. It will be the 2008 election and Hillary Clinton as part of her agenda is to implement that national health care. Reagan's voice rings eternal in warning America of what is right and what is wrong.
   I would have enjoyed the book more if the letters would have have been his living legacy of God given wisdom more and less of the facts in trying to prove to ignorant people he really was a good soul. I already knew that like most Americans and we didn't require convincing.
   The book though proves Reagan was the genuine person on camera or off. He and his lovely wife, Nancy, endured more from their children and petty personalities than anyone ever should have to. Americans owe them an eternal thank you and an even more deeper gratitude to God in guiding this American's life who revolutionized America and the world and whose "shining city on a hill" is still moving the entire world.
   That is legacy a generation later and I still love that old man.



5. Reading this book, its impossible to escape a few conclusions. First, Reagan was a very warm and cordial man. Regardless of your political views, his decency and civility are very much missed in today's Washington. Next, Reagan was obviously someone who has a grasp of his material. Whether you agreed with him or not, reading this book and others that have reproduced his correspondence, speeches etc. that he drafted personally will forever shatter the mythical "amiable dunce" that his opponents were quick to embrace. Finally, I got a much better sense of the Reagan the man than any biography I've read so far. Interestingly, one gets a MUCH better sense of Reagan the man and the President than from his autobiography, which was fairly mediocre in comparison.

2 comments about In The Footsteps of Churchill.

1. British military historian Richard Holmes' "In The Footsteps Of Churchill: A Study In Character", is a book that, inspite of its brevity, offers a most penetrating, thoughtful analysis of Winston Churchill as a politician and statesman. While he is obviously someone favorably disposed to Churchill for some intriguing personal reasons, Holmes does offer a surprisingly nuanced portrayal of Great Britain's greatest 20th Century prime minister, which veers from a self-indulgent narcissist to a deliberative, often profound, observer of his fellow British politicians and of foreign affairs, especially in the 1930s, with respect to Hitler's Nazi Germany. Understandably Holmes, as a military historian, emphasizes Churchill's military service, his celebrated exploits as a military journalist and finally, his service as First Sea Lord in both world wars, as a means of exploring Churchill's personal character, and demonstrating how his military experience played an important part in defining it. Holmes may be the first historian I know of who does consider simultaneously Churchill's service as First Sea Lord, ultimately portraying a less than flattering portrait of someone who was too "wedded" to the interests of charismatic, flamboyant leaders like Admirals Fisher and Beatty (For example, Churchill seriously underestimated the crucial need of smaller escort vessels for the Royal Navy in both world wars, relying more on the advice of his admirals interested in big gun warships like ballecruisers and battleships.). And yet, inspite of a detailed exploration of Churchill's personal and leadership flaws, Holmes does conclude that ultimately, his strong, decisive leadership during World War II was necessary for ensuring Great Britain's survival. Those who think they know well Winston Churchill's biography will ultimately be as surprised and intrigued as I was while reading Professor Holmes' superb study of Churchill's character. Without question, it is among the finest books on Churchill's life that I've come across.



2. Professor Holmes is a British military historian and it shows in this interesting attempt at describing Winston Churchill's character. He decidedly has an opinion, usually conservative, on most political and social issues of the last century and is happy to share them with the reader. He also spends more time on battle issues in the two world wars than would most authors of a character study of this type. This book is best for readers who have some prior knowledge of the life of Winston Churchill. The professor points out many of the faults and warts of his subject but the ultimate verdict is in recognition of his genius.

5 comments about Bad Boy: The Life And Politics Of Lee Atwater.

1. About the political life of Lee Atwater, "the godfather of spin," this book details Atwater's political strategies, from managing local races to running Bush's 1988 campaign. Woven into the biography are valuable lessons about campaigning -- information that they don't teach you in college. Though many disagree with Lee Atwater's personal -- and political -- life, it shouldn't dissuade you from learning from this brilliant strategist. (We certainly don't endorse his sins, but you'd better understand them if you're going to work in politics).



2. Like Lee Atwater himself, this biography is entertaining, and quick-and-dirty. Also like Atwater, it is essentially skin deep, offering little assessment on how a figure like Atwater could arise and become so powerful within the Republican Party so fast. There's also not much about Atwater's innovation -- "oppo" research-based politics that turned the nascent 24-hour news cycle to the advantage of the savvier campaign. Atwater invented the style of "war room" campaigning that was enhanced by another southerner, James Carville, four years later.
   Still, the book is well-crafted and does an excellent job of chronicling Atwater's life. It is especially admirable for revealing the truth about Atwater's alleged deathbed renunciation of hardball politics -- which never really happened. The real story is far more interesting.



3. I read Bad Boy with great anticipation and came away with mixed feelings. "If only we had another Lee Atwater" is a sentiment that resonates with today's too-often clutzy, tone-deaf GOP. But the Lee Atwater presented in Brady's comes off less as the strategic Messiah lionized in Republican circles and more like a go-getting prankster. The truth is probably somewhere in between.

   Typically, Brady obsesses over the Willie Horton episode, even though he does dislodge the pervasive myth that Atwater was somehow the prime mover behind this over-hyped episode. Still, these pages would have worked better as a more detailed account of the strategy behind the '88 campaign. (That's why I bought the book -- not to read more re-hashing of the Horton claptrap.) After enjoyable and vivid accounts of Atwater's early South Carolina campaigns, Bad Boy starts to disappoint and doesn't shed much more light on the politics of the 1980s and beyond.

   Atwater may be called the master of negative politics, but after watching the latest episode in Florida and recalling the impeachment ordeal, I doubt that this is what will distinguish him in the pantheon of political masterminds in years to come. Atwater's legacy will be that of a strategist who had a unique sense of what was really going on in his generation, and one of the first to recognize the current transformation of politics from a battle between left and right to contest between libertarian-minded thinkers who relish progress and freedom and traditional populists who want to control it.




4. Atwater was pretty much a moral scumbag, but the father of politics as we know it today. He did it his way and for that he is a hero. Brady tells the truth about the man and his life. Reading, you feel like a part of the action. It's a great book, but don't pick it up unless you're comfortable being obsessed with politics for the rest of your life!



5. I read this for several reasons. I worked with Lee, and virtualy every person named in the book. It was a time in my life I'll never forget. Lee might not realize it , but he did fulfill his dream. He taught me, and so many others like me, when he didn't know it. It was a privilidge to have been one of his students. Now to the book. I never knew that one of my photos was placed in the casket by Sally. I took the christmas card picture mentioned on page xix. That is an honor. Lee had me photograph every party, mixer, event, and many trips. We even played guitar after hours occasionally. As an employee of both the RNC and the NRCC, my interaction was close and personal. Everyone who is on the course to become politically active, behind or in front of the cameras/podiums/candidates, should read this book and learn from this book. However, they should note the following: on page 237, Dick Cheney was the Representative from Wyoming, not Colorado. How do I know? I did his successor's (Craig Thomas, now a U.S. Senator) media, and was there when Craig was selected to run. And, on page 245, Ed Rollins is called the Deputy Chairman of the Republican National Congressional Committee. Wrong, it was the National Republican Congressioanl Committee. And, he was Chairman. Nitpicking? No. Lee would want information to be accurate. NSR (no spin required)

5 comments about Khrushchev: The Man and His Era.

1. 
   
   It's about time we had a decent biography of Nikita Khruschev.
   
   Khruschev is a more important historical figure than seems generally appreciated today. He was something of a refreshing presence on the dreary world scene of the late 1950s and early 1960s. I remember his American tour, and you couldn't help but find a kind of pleasant and infectious quality in some of his observations and activities. I believe he sincerely wanted to slow or halt the Cold War the same way he diminished the horrors of Stalinism, an historic achievement.
   
   Taubman doesn't capture the more idealistic sense of Khruschev, which I believe was genuine, because I was a young man through his time and took an interest in events.
   
   Taubman's Khruschev is a bright (Khruschev had considerable analytical ability and a remarkable memory) peasant risen to the top, an extremely crude man, always regretful about his lack of formal education, who never ceases to behave as something of a Father Karamazov. I have no doubt there is truth here, but it provides an incomplete picture.
   
   Was Khruschev any cruder than what we now know of the private life of John Kennedy, who had prostitutes swimming in the White House pool while Jackie was away, or of the public Lyndon Johnson, who used to conduct interviews and bark orders while relieving himself? I ask this because Taubman repeats the word crude or offers anecdotes about crude behavior many, many times.
   
   Even as a young man I thought many of Khruschev's crudities were not so great as they were treated by America's press. The banging of his shoe at the U.N. is a favorite example. Crude? Yes. But significant beyond style? I think not much.
   
   I enjoyed this book and would recommend it to anyone interested in biography, the period, world affairs, or Soviet history, but I do have reservations about it, and it should be read with some caution.
   
   Taubman weaves into the text too great a sense of the correctness of America's position and policies of the time, giving a sense of Khruschev largely representing an irritating and sometimes dangerous opponent to them. America often behaved in provocative and dangerous ways through the Cold War. Taubman mentions some matters, as Eisenhower's saying that if the Soviets over-flew the United States the way the United States regularly invaded Soviet airspace there would be war, but the week-to-week reality of this is not stressed enough here to appreciate the intensity of the Soviet point of view. There were many such matters, including American submarines actually colliding with Soviet boats.
   
   Taubman gives a lot of attention to Khruschev's well-known habit of rattling his rockets in speeches, but we are not given enough background for why he might do this. The Pentagon actually had plans in the mid-1950s for an atomic pre-emptive attack on the Soviets. Generals like Curtis LeMay, the man who bombed Japan to the point of gratuitous horror, openly advocated nuclear hostilities. And, of course, America had used the atomic bomb, twice.
   
   Taubman's treatment of matters like the Cuban Missile Crisis suffers from this. The U.S. had a huge, generously-finaced terrorist operation going against Cuba at the time, including along more than one track, and that is an important part of the background that Taubman treats with what I believe is neglect. Taubman's words on the ghastly Bay of Pigs does reveal hints of American jingo attitudes. They are not offered loudly, but they are there, and I think they should not be if we want to understand what motivated Khruschev.
   
   One of the great missing chapters in the book is any detail around the Kennedy assassination. The assassination is there but not treated adequately. It was, after all, an epic event which had great consequences on both the Soviets and America. Of course, to treat the assassination adequately involves going into issues that remain murky and controversial.
   
   Despite my reservations, the book is an interesting and worthwhile read, however, I certainly do not agree with the New York Times review which said "Succeeds in every sense...unlikely to be surpassed any time soon...."



2. This biography is the kind that I like. It's about an intermediate figure and uses that individual's life to frame up the times (ref: my review of Paul Preston's Franco biography).
   
   Taubman does an excellent job of research and a good job at having a view about Krushchev's character and motives. However, the book is just not executed that well. The early years are presented fairly slowly and don't seem as tightly focused given that Taubman does have a thesis about Krushchev the man. This may just be that there are gaps in what he could learn about earlier years. The second half when Krushchev is in charge picks up a great deal. Some of this is just that the stakes are higher plus he has better sources since there are/were people alive to interview. However, even here there is some sloppiness in presentation.
   
   The book is an excellent confirmation that much of what occurs in history is because of the idiosyncracies of individuals. Anyone who has worked in a large corporation would be familiar with unusual decision-making processes based on the personalities of people. That reality is presented clearly here even including how Eisenhower and Kennedy are presented in their dealings with Krushchev. On the one hand, it's almost amazing that war was avoided, But on the other hand, all of these individuals understood the amount of death that would have occurred and worked hard to avoid it. It speaks well that all understood that losing face was just fine compared to killing millions of people. However, it is repeatedly presented that Krushchev was certain that nuclear weapons could not and would not be used so the irony is that it made it easier to threaten with resulting in the view that he was kind of a mad man. It's similar to two bullies ready to fight as long as someone is restraining both of them. The good news is that Krushchev was not fundamentally evil like a Hitler who probably would have used the weapons.
   
   But, this leads to the most interesting question about Krushchev. Taubman clearly speaks to the contradiction of Krushchev participating in Stalin's purges but then subsequently denouncing these crimes. While not overtly stating it, Taubman presents Krushchev as a true believer in communism who is willing to kill to achieve it for the "greater good." I think the book should have more clearly discussed the probability that Krushchev also accepted that killing was necessary for his own personal power. And, if so, could everything have not just been the pursuit of personal advancement/power with communism as a convenient support for that? Did any of these communist leaders (Lenin, Stalin, Mao) actually believe what they were saying? Taubman does not address this.
   
   The other gap I think the book has is that it doesn't really speak much about Brezhnev. Given that Brezhnev maintains power till death, was there a contrast in his approach that would have shed light on Krushchev. My guess is that there probably is and I think it also might have helped answer the question of whether Krushchev ever believed in communism or was just out for himself.
   
   As it is, it is easy to say that Krushchev was not evil in the way that Stalin was. Once he was in charge, it became possible to be retired from the government rather than always branded a traitor and executed. Even to the point, that Krushchev could be forced to retire.
   
   So, this is a worthy read but expect to work a bit to get through it.



3. In the last 60's, Krushchev wrote "Khrushchev Remembers", a self-serving memoir. It was interesting to read depsite its heavy slant, but the book didn't provide the reader with a sense of the man, and it was clearly censored by Soviet authorities. William Taubman has written a fine biography that gives us a clear and astonishing picture of Krushchev along with a snapshot of the Stalin-era purges and a superb picture of the Cold War. He uses interviews with Krushchev's former associates and with his son Sergei to great effect. He also uses archives that became available only after the Soviet Union fell apart. As a result of his research and clear writing, we feel like we know the man who darn near blew us all up during the Cuban missle crisis. (Or at least that was the feeling I had in 1962, watching in a college dorm as it all unfolded on TV.)
   
   It's scary to see Krushchev as Taubman displays him. We knew he was a boor when he took off his shoe and pounded his desk at the UN in 1960, but it was fascinating to read about his highly charged, highly politicized encounters with Soviet artists and writers in the early 60s. Taubman shows us the man's temperament, which makes one wonder at how the Cold War failed to cause a nuclear war. It also makes one marvel at the distortion in national policies that come about when one person has such enormous power and is so undisciplined.
   
   Although the character flaws Taubman illuminates are serious and frightening in retrospect, Taubman also shows how important Krushchev was in ending the Stalinist era. In 1953, a politician in the USSR who fell from power would have been shot; in 1964 Krushchev was simply booted out, given a pension and made to shut up.
   
   It's hard to imagine anyone having better access to Khrushchev's contemporaries, and Taubman puts an astonishing story together for us in a beautuifully understated way.



4. My mom -- white bread, Communist-fearing, life-long Democrat -- has always had a soft spot for Nikita Khruschev. "I just don't think he was that bad. He couldn't have been that bad if he cried after President Kennedy died." This book vindicates my mom. He really *did* cry after Kennedy died -- although it's not clear how much that was due to grief and how much that was due to the realization he'd have to work with a US president with some actual political experience and ties in LBJ. (No word on how my mom knew about the crying thing....KGB files have now been closed).
   
   But even if Nikita Sergeyevitch, right hand man to Stalin, participant(however distasteful) in the Ukraine purges, cold war bully to Kennedy's (and to some degree Eisenhower's) naivete, and shoe banger extraordinaire wasn't Mr. Sentimentality, this book divulges a lot about him we can be grateful for. And in looking at the darker side of this major player of the 20th century, Taubman excels at helping us understand him from all angles: his son Sergei, Khruschev's own papers, the historical record here and in Russia, and indeed the correspondence between Khruschev and Kennedy, which began during the Cuban Missile Crisis and did not end until the fall of 1963 (both undoubtedly expected it to continue).
   
   The last is indeed the most poignant, perhaps just for the American reader, perhaps for all of us, since it does signify the attempts of two great but flawed leaders to struggle with the immense burden on their shoulders and try to come to some kind of understanding for the sake of their nations. In doing so, they seem just about to build a friendship.
   
   I found the book a bit too long, and would like the prose to have gone at a more clipping pace. Better editing may have helped. But I will read it again someday and I'm glad to have it on my shelf. I don't see how it could become outdated or lose its importance.



5. First off, I read the British printing not the U.S. - but I assume it's the same text.
   
   The entire book left me feeling like I was not getting much. It's an immense book and the writing is tight so it is covering a lot of ground.
   
   But... I kept finding myself asking, what was going on here. Why did this event happen. Why did Khrushchev do this and not do that.
   
   The most egregious example is when he was removed from power - there is nothing about how it happened. The book jumps from he is absolute ruler to two days after he has lost all power. Who did it? How did they pull it off? What did Khrushchev do if anything to try and retain his power? You won't find out here.
   
   And then there is the central question that makes Khrushchev such a fascinating person - how did he survive under Stalin, helping in many of the purges, yet when he took over, virtually eliminate state sanctioned murder. On this subject the book talks a little, but so very little.
   
   The banal and boring parts of his life are here. The interesting parts are not.

4 comments about India Remembered: A Personal Account of the Mountbattens During the Transfer of Power.

1. This is a very interesting time frame for India. It shows how well the British kept order in a huge population. It showed that the country was not prepared to rule itself. Photographs were most unique. Mountbatten ruled during the most unsettling time during partition. He also wrote a book "Freedom At Midnight" which gives detail of the process of partition. The books compliment each other. Having lived in India, it brought back many memories. A very good research book.



2. Lord Louis Mountbatten was one of the most interesting people of the 20th Century. This book by his daughter Pamela and her daughter India should not be confused with a scholarly book. It is a fascinating account from the viewpoint of an 18 year old living through some exciting and horrendous times. Lady Pamela and her mother the Vicereine worked far harder among the native peoples than anyone might have expected them so to do.
   
   It would probably be helpful to have some knowledge of the transfer of power in 1947 and the creation of Pakistan. However, I think a person could learn some about that historic occurance by reading this book. The issue of Pakistan is still a plague to many people. Lady Pamela mentions riots in the North West Frontier. This is where there are many difficulties today - 60 years on.
   
   There are pictures in this book from family albums that have not been seen in other books. I would recommend this to anyone with a healthy curiosity about the world.



3. I anxiously awaited Lady Pamela's book only to be very disappointed in the result. The photos are great as are many of the little memories. An 18 year old, fresh out of school probably isn't the best observer of any events. Her diary entries do add a lot to the personality of the players [for instance her beloved father nagged her to write her diary!] but overall this is a not a very useful book. Campbell-Johnson's "Mission with Mountbatten" is far more useful for a real account of the transfer of power.



4. I'd been looking forward to reading this book about what is a particularly fascinating period of history about politics in India during the late 1940's. The late Earl Mountbatten's critical role as the last Viceroy of India warrants a well-researched and carefully written book that should have lent a better depth of understanding about this era's significance. Unfortunately, this book fails to deliver such a substantial treatment. While I have great respect for the late Earl and his Wife, Lady Edwina and the entire Mountbatten Family, I cannot recommend this particular book about this august family. The book relys primarily on the diary entries of Lady Pamela Mountbatten which she made at age eighteen during her months in India with her Father and Mother. Additional information explaining more about highly complex historic and political issues is neither contained, nor is this book substantive with details. Unless you are interested in what the Mountbattens had at lunch, who they met on a given day and various "tea-time" social chatter about historic personages, you will be disappointed with this superficial treatment. This book is more of a family photo albumn, and therefore, best classified as a "coffee-table book." I respect Lady Mountbatten for her effort, however, this book should have been cemented with more factual and historical details along with better editing worthy of a monumental era this book fails to address.

5 comments about Chomsky For Beginners.

1. I have been a Chomsky fan for sometime but I did not know he was the most quoted man alive. It is a pity so few people know about him but this is a nice book introducing Chomsky to general public in a visually friendly manner. Good Stuff!



2. This book is riddled with typos and the intellectual exposition is of a corresponding quality. Nevertheless, it probably does justice to Chomsky's political ideas, which appear to be simplistic in the extreme. This is also a profoundly negative book containing no suggestions on how to actually make the world a better place.



3. An easy way to begin to understand the amazing thinker and man. From the back cover:
   Noam Chomsky has written some 30 books, he is the most-quoted author on earth. The New York Times calls him "arguably the most intelligent intellectual alive" -- yet most people have no idea who he is or what he's about. CHOMSKY FOR BEGINNERS tells you what he's about: Chomsky is known for his work in two distinct areas -- Linguistics and... "Gadflying." ("Gadfly," the word applied to Socrates, comes closest to the constant social irritant that Chomsky has become.) It is Chomsky's work as Political Gadfly and Media Critic that has given passion and hope to the general public -- and alienated the major media -- which, of course, is why you don't know more about him.
   
   Chomsky's messagte is very simple: Huge corporations run our country, the world, both political parties, and Major Media. (You suspected it; Chomsky proves it.) If enough people open their minds to what he has to say, the whole gingerbread fantasy we've been fed about America might vanish like the Emperor's clothes... and America might turn into a real Democracy.
   
   What's so special about CHOMSKY FOR BEGINNERS? The few existing intros to Chomsky cover either Chomsky-the-Linguist OR Chomsky-the-Political-Gadfly. CHOMSKY FOR BEGINNERS covers both -- plus an excluve interview with the maverick genius. The clarity of David Cogswell's text and the wit of Paul Gordon's illustrations make Chomsky as easy to understand as the genius next door. Words and art combine to clarify (but not oversimplify) the work and to "humorize" the man who may very well be what one savvy interviewer called him -- "the smartest man on earth."



4. I have been meaning to write a review for this book for a very long time... For me, this is the quintessential beginner's book on Chomsky... As both my husband and I are avid political activists, we have been occasionally frustrated, and quite often saddened, by the fact that so many people we meet have no idea who Noam Chomsky is... It is no good preaching to the choir, we are out there to give folk the opportunity to expand their political awareness, to entertain some new ideas, to think from a different perspective... Indeed, to even begin to 'think' at all...
   
   When we are met with, 'Noam Chomsky who? huh?', this is the book we recommend, and have given out over the years I don't know how many times; we just keep replacing it, *lol*
   
   Why is this book so invaluable? Because it is succinct, (153 pages), visually funny and, in a nutshell, entertaining from beginning to end... But do not mistake the 'fun' for 'fluff'... This book packs a most powerful punch in that it is essentially a primer for looking at the way one thinks, and how one goes about the process of beginning to think 'critically' instead of thinking 'emotionally'.
   
   Given the State of the Union these days, more and more people are questioning not only the trustworthiness of their leaders, but the very process of governing itself... They are asking, 'How did it come to this?'... Through this book, they can see how the 'messaging' takes place through the use and manipulation of the media and political spin... they can see how they've been, and are continuing to be, influenced... and once this revelation takes place, they are much more prone to relegating 'emotion' to its rightful place while simultaneously beginning the journey of 'critical thinking'...
   
   All of this takes place in this perfect little beginner's book... Giving someone just stepping into the fray of politics a book such as, 'The Essential Chomsky', (500 pages), will daunt them to the point of regressing back into their shell of complacency... Giving them, 'Chomsky for Beginners', will teach them, entertain them, and spur them on to finding out more... and when that happens, we then recommend the 'Real Story Series' with books such as, 'The Prosperous Few and the Restless Many', 'The Common Good', 'Take the Rich Off Welfare', or 'What Uncle Sam Really Wants'... all books that are also packed with a punch, but very succinct, (100-200 pages), and easy to understand...
   
   I cannot recommend highly enough, 'Chomsky for Beginners'... David Cogswell and Paul Gordon have gifted us with a brand of genius that teaches through the art of tweeking our funny-bone... Huzzah! for their brilliance, *vbs*



5. I never knew who Chomsky was until I saw him on TV. I noticed he was very sharp and punctual when he spoke. It intrigued to get a book by him, but it was too heavy. Luckily, I found this book. This book allowed me to understand Chomsky in a another form of intelligence through pictures and vocabulary I could comprehend.
   It covers many actual quotes and text which really makes Chomsky truly be a genius people should read and understand.

2 comments about Sketches from a Life.

1. I guess if you want to write a book on sketches of your life, you've got to have lived an interesting one. And Mr Kennan did.
   He lived most of his adult life abroad, mostly in Europe, with a focus in the Eastern part. This allows him to give a nice perspective of life in the Old World versus America. Also, because he lived to be 100, he can give a very good perspective timewise (he wrote the book when he was in his 80s). He comes across as a nostalgic, but it is hard not to be one when one is old, I guess.
   One reviewer said that Kennan is the kind of man who owes everything to his position in an organization. It seems to be true. In the book, he is extremely passive and seems to go with the flow. He also seems not to like much interaction with people and shows more emotion about a work of art or a beautiful building than real people. He doesn't even talk much about his wife.
   Nevertheless, this does not diminish the pleasure of reading the book, if you prepare yourself to a pleasant tale of distant places, both in space and time. He has been there, he has done that, that's what matters.



2. "Sketches from a Life" is a series of meditative reflections written by George Kennan during his long career in the foreign service and academia. To an extent the sketches tread ground made familiar to readers of his two volumes of memoirs, but I was impressed by the immediacy and eloquence of these diary-like texts. In many cases, Kennan's writing would be perfectly suited to the novel format.
   
   Kennan's years in Europe and his proximity to the destruction of World War II deepened and confirmed what I suspect was an already ingrained melancholic and pessimistic character. The tone of many of these sketches is therefore quite bleak. There are several haunting scenes set amidst the ruined cities of post-war Europe; in one, Kennan sees a few young Berliners wandering in the wreckage of a bombed-out cathedral as a symbol of "man's lost and purposeless state, his loneliness, his helplessness, his wistfulness, and his inability to understand."
   
   I was also impressed to see Kennan's thoughts on Los Angeles; specifically, his concerns regarding America's growing reliance on the automobile and dependence on oil, which were written with great prescience in 1951.

5 comments about The Greatest Communicator: What Ronald Reagan Taught Me About Politics, Leadership, and Life.

1. This author does a great job of putting us beside him as he interacts with President Reagan. What surprised me most was how different Reagan really was compared to the image the "drive-by media" gave us.
   
   Wirthlin is someone who's name we've heard but this reallly solidifies him as an important insider and confidant to the greatest president in the 20th century.
   
   Well done Mr. Wirthlin!



2. Dick Wirthlin's myriad experience with the Reagan presidency, including a three-decade relationship with the "Greatest Communicator," is eloquently recounted by Wynton Hall, Wirthlin's co-author and an expert in presidential rhetoric. To say that this book is a must read for anyone wanting to know the man behind the politician is an understatement. Read Chapter 7, "Three Goodbyes," for a poignant and uplifting account of Reagan's bravery in his battle with Alzheimer's.



3. Most reviews submitted are friends of the author or work for him. This makes their reviews a bit unfair to the rest of the reading world. However, the book was well written and interesting. I love Reagan and always enjoy reading about him. It's interesting to see from an insider's point of view.



4. I thoroughly enjoyed the book, and it really held my attention throughout. It is a personal portrayal of a man that provides unique insight into how his values truly drove his behavior and how his personality and vision built the foundation for successful communications. Dick Wirthlin does a wonderful job of communicating friendship and of creating a very human connection in the reader's mind with President Reagan.



5. This was a fascinating account about the rise to the US presidency, and what drove his policies of one of the greatest world leaders of his century. This book lays out clearly the vision Reagan had when he came to office, and how his policies and actions, fit into that aspirational goal/vision. Younger people may lack the vantage point that those of us who grew from childhood with the threat of nuclear war with the Soviet Union as a daily and real threat to our existence and life itself. Reagan's leadership and legacy is that he may have perhaps eliminated that threat. Wirthlin's insight and record from his proximity to the decisions and what drove them provides yet another glimpse of the character and leadership principles that guided Ronald Reagon's policies and actions. While we stuggle again today with threats and challenges to our democracy and freedom around the globe, the lesson here is that we should not underestimate the good that can come from a bold vision and dedication to a noble cause even if it may take sacrifice and overcoming significant adversity, and time to achieve it!