5 comments about Will You Die with Me?: My Life and the Black Panther Party.

1. This book open my eyes to the life of a BPP member. Not only did this book show both sides of the Party but it gives you a look at the state of the Nation and people of that time. This book shows you the whole hearted dedication to the struggle and to the man Flores calls his prince. They were a group who did used violence but they also help the community with free breakfast and lunch programs. If you want to learn about The Black Panther Party this is a good book to start with.



2. Flores Forbes told a very moving/disturbing story but one that excludes many details regarding his early violent past as an underground operative.
   There are many holes in Forbe's version of his botched 1978 hit on an elderly woman. While the elderly woman's story never makes it in Forbe's book it did make it in the NEW TIMES Magazine in October of 1978 and she reveals a completely different story or at least provides a story. The Black Panther Party that Forbes speaks of is not the same one that he joined in 1969 but one that lost direction after repeated attacks/murder from a gun happy Police force and an out of control FBI agency.
   
   A worthy read would be PANTHER ON THE PROWL by Elbert "BIGMAN Howard one of the first members to join The Black Panther Party



3. When he was 12 years old, Flores Forbes experienced police brutality and racism which set him on a course that he wound up joining the Black Panther Party before he was legally eligible to vote. Forbes swiftly rose through the ranks and at age 20, he became Huey Newton's assistant chief of staff which meant that he was the commander of the organization's paramilitary unit. Forbes was zealous in his duties in this role and he wound up getting wounded for the cause. After 3 years underground, Forbes turned himself in.
   
   This is a great, revealing book that helps us understand just what the Black Panthers were all about.



4. If you want to read about something good that came out of the Black Panther movement, then read this book. There were parts of this book that made me sad while reading the book but at the end I was overjoyed. Should be a movie (S.Lee this isna movie for you to make, starring Lorenze Tate).



5. This book is intresting because Flores was not an orginal member of the party, like some many of the biographies by former Panthers, he joined when they were already underway. He provied insight to the Panthers of the early to late 70s and what happened to the party during those years. He is honest and looks back at the actions with incredible thought and emotion which makes an excellent read and a great piece of Panther history.

5 comments about Forgive Us Our Spins: Michael Moore and the Future of the Left.

1. Is it possible to be a liberal and still not like Michael Moore? Yes, and Jesse Larner shows how. Larner shows Moore to be a deceptive, dishonest propagandist. For example, on Farenheit 9-11, Moore absurdly tries to show pre-war Iraq under Saddam to be an oasis of peace and freedom. Larner shows Moore to be the Ann Coulter of the left, someone who makes a lot of money out of shock value, but who has little constructive to offer. I highly recommend this book.



2. I was drawn to this look at Michael Moore because the author, like me, shares many of Moore's liberal/left views, yet, as the title suggests, he also is bothered by both Moore the person and Moore the filmmaker. I wanted to find out why.
   Larner is persuasive in delineating some of Moore's deceptive methods. Example: Contrary to the whole implication of "Roger and Me", Moore did indeed interview Roger Smith of GM - and at length. As Larner suggests, this and other misrepresentations (like the obvious distortion of depicting happy Iraqi children in Saddam's Iraq, pre-war) serve to give ammunition to the Right and detract severely from his cause.
   But in the end I was disappointed with this book since it fails to give Moore enough credit for the enormous success he has had in shining light on injustice in our country. At the end, my clear impression was that Larner basically supports our war in Iraq and can't forgive Moore for "Fahrenheit 9/11".
   So read this book, if you wish, but then do as I did and also read "Citizen Moore" by Roger Rapoport, another liberal. Rapoport also describes Moore's shortcomings, but he does the great service of quoting both people who know Moore, like Ralph Nader, and Moore himself at great length. He editiorializes very little and lets the reader sort out for him/herself the strengths and weaknesses of this very talented and complicated man.



3. Jesse Larner's book is a refreshing page-turner and (despite his occasional lapse into outright silliness over blogs) largely right on the money. It is refreshing because here is someone who believes in social justice; believes in unions; is outraged at Caterpillar because it is a union-busting company (don't hear that very often, do you?); offers the most plausible explanation of how the 2000 Election was stolen before a single voter walked into the voting booth I have ever heard--and who is outraged at Michael Moore.
   
   But this book is not really about Michael Moore. It is about us. It is about a political debate that "is couched in terms of blind ideology"; about a culture that prefers the simple, emotionally satisfying story about "good and evil" to an honest analysis (or even an assessment of our own interests). In such a political culture, when the time is right (and after the 2000 Election, 9/11, and the Iraq War the time was very right indeed), a Michael Moore, an Ann Coulter, and many, many others find a receptive audience, can become quite wealthy and can come to "represent their" side in the popular imagination, at home and abroad.
   
   And that, as Larner points out is destructive indeed. It is destructive in the first instance to "their side" but in the long-term it is destructive to the whole point of politics which is supposed to be about reasonable, pragmatic compromise. And so I highly recommend that you read this book. Not so much for what it says about Michael Moore but for what it says about us.



4. Jesse Larner's "Forgive Us Our Spins" is a refreshingly even handed response to the Age of the Polemic. The media culture at this point in history is filled with single-minded, manipulative propagandists bent on dividing American voters. Whatever the intent behind it, the tactics of such a movement are questionable. There are additional questions of what effect all this media razzle dazzle has on elections and the culture overall.
   
   In his book, Larner takes on the left's most ubiquitous spin master, Michael Moore. I am a fan of Michael Moore which is why I read the book. Larner is perhaps less of a fan, but he does seem to share Moore's politics. He looks into Moore's background, analyzes his films, and takes a more general look at Moore's place amidst other notable polemicists like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh.
   
   The book works best as a companion to Moore's work. I was less compelled by it as a comprehensive look at the media age. Larner doesn't seem to have any conclusive data about the effect of Moore's work (and political presence) on the elections. At best he can speculate, a limitation he seems to acknowledge. He ends the book by challenging collegues on the right to do similar investigations into their polemicists. Fair enough.
   
   Larner doesn't dwell enough on what I consider to a be an important point: there is a difference between polemics that take on institutional power and those that attack people. Michael Moore is a critic of consolidated power and its representatives. His right wing collegues often attack minority groups who have very little power, like gays and lesbians, single mothers, and illegal immigrants. That is a rather large distinction in my mind.
   
   I don't know if this book will add much to the national discourse, but it is an enjoyable read.



5. When I saw Michael Moore's Columbine, I was made very uneasy by his manipulative use of certain scenes - for instance, his interview with Charlton Heston followed by the elaborately self-serving placement of the photo of a murdered child. And while I certainly agreed with Moore's anti-gun lobby position, I thought his `explanations' for American violence were simple-minded, to say the least.
   
   So it was with interest and a degree of relief that I read Jesse Larner's biography-cum-political commentary - a critique from the left - on Moore and the American left. I'd bet it will stimulate a lot of thinking and discussion among people hungry for a genuine approach to developing progressive American positions.
   
   Larner writes in a fluent, accessible style - and while documenting some of Moore's less savory approaches to both film-making and politics, he maintains an appreciation for Moore's strengths that's a nice counterpoint to the unsubtle and dishonest behaviour he details.
   
   Finally, the book offers thoughtful (though depressing) insights into the current position of the American left.
   
   Susan Berlin

5 comments about My Rise And Fall.

1. This book is a combination of several primary sources related directly to Benito Mussolini. The first "My Rise" was Mussolini's account of how he came to power in Italy. It has its uses but the reader should be ware that it does omit several parts of his rise to power and it is worth keeping a good Mussolini biography close at hand to compare the account with. "My Fall" is a compilation of about a dozen articles penned by Mussolini about the time that occurred from the Grand Council meeting to the establishment of the Salo Republic. Overall these provide an interesting look into Mussolini's mind and a chance to understand what he considered important in his life. The accounts are well written and Mussolini does an excellent job of recounting the parts he feels are relevant. It is with an eye towards revisionist history but despite that the documents can still be useful. All of the preface and introductions are done by top notch historians and do an excellent job of putting things in perspective.



2. This book is actually a compilation of Benito Mussolini's memoirs set approximately 16 years apart: the first being dated c. 1928 only eight years after his Fascisti 'Black Shirts' had assumed power in Rome by plebescite; the second being dated c. 1944 when the Fascist party in Italy was able to retain power only with Germany's occupation and Mussolini's 'rescue' by German forces.
   
   When it comes to Mussolini, most modern readers immediately compare him to Adolf Hitler even though they understand little of what brought fascism to Italy or why Mussolini was so well received at home and abroad. Contrary to what many believe, Mussolini never had a very high opinion of Adolf Hitler and tried desperately to form a political pact with France/England with regards to Italy's future: Mussolini remained opposed to Hitler because Germany was unified with Italy's arch-enemy, Austria: Mussolini formed the ill-fated axis alliance only at the last minute when he was unable to get the concessions he wanted and Germany formally declared war against France in 1940. It would be his demise as Mussolini and his party would lose power in Italy by 1943 and, instead of the great empire they had promised to the Italian populace, Italy had become a vassal state occupied by the German military: Mussolini himself being nothing more than Hitler's puppet and mouthpiece. Thus, through his memoirs, we can follow how he was a favorite defender of freedom against Boshevism in the 20s and 30s adored by the US and England, to becoming nothing more than Hitler's lapdog by 1943.
   
   This is a very important book where, by his own words, one can measure the man for who he was. Unlike Hitler's rambling anti-semitic diatribe in 'Mein Kampf', Mussolini's papers address purely political and social questions adding with his rather pompous flair that he and his Fascisti are an indispensable to the formation and prosperity of the state. He explains why he was motivated to act and describes the political environment he found himself in fighting the socialist, communist, and capitalist interests in Italy. His memoirs are not only interesting from a historical perspective, but also from a political one in that they provide a lot of insight as to the events that were responsible for the development of fascist doctrines in Europe in that period of time.



3. I will be brief,a man as large as life as Mussolini was , no one but he could write with his vast knowledge of the political turmoil that was slowly tearing Italy apart in the early 1920's.Too bad he came to Italy in the 20th century instead of the 21st!Getting involved with Hitler and his war gives Western writers an opportunity to demean this man.If you take the time to read this you will find the man to be both highly educated and relentless in his faith for the Italian people to move progressively into the 20th century.Buy this book!!!!



4. one of the best book I have read.
   You do not have to agree or disagree with Mr. Mussolini to enjoy this book. Because you can learn a lot about the will power, the determination, and the courage of the man.



5. I bought this book on the belief that it would explain to me the very essence of Italian Fascism. Although some important themes and ideas of Mussolini's fascism were discussed, I was disappointed with the lack of detail and expansion. However, I was enthralled by Mussolini's elegant writing style.I found the Duce's view of his own history - however biased - very informing. It gives an intimate view of early 20th century Italy,and in particular, the mood of the Italian people(especially the war veterans). The book's two parts, the first written well before the Second World War and the second during the war, offer a stark comparison of the different outlooks on the world that Mussolini possessed - he was once popular and arrogant, then hated and bitter. The book offers an extraordinary opportunity to take a deep and intimate look inside Mussolini's soul, as well as a thorough - however biased - examination of Fascist Italy. A must for anyone interested in the Duce, Fascism's general themes or World War II in general.

1 comments about The Presidential Companion: Readings on the First Ladies.

1. Collaboratively compiled and edited by Robert P. Watson (Editor of "White House Studies, a journal of scholarship and commentary on the politics and history of the White House) and Anthony J. Eksterowicz (Professor of Political Science at James Madison University, Harrisonburg, Virginia), The Presidential Companion: Readings On The First Ladies is an impressive and informative collection of insightful and revealing essays by a variety of authors concerning the political impact of American presidential wives throughout history upon their husbands, their husbands policy making/implementing colleagues, and the general public. From Martha Washington's selection of furnishings to Hillary Rodham Clinton's leadership of the President's Task Force on National Health Care Reform, The Presidential Companion is unique in its close study. Of particular note is the debunking of the commonly held myth that only Eleanor Roosevelt and the First Ladies after her made significant political contributions to America itself. The Presidential Companion is a scholarly and very highly recommended contribution to American Political Science and Women's Studies reading lists.

5 comments about Karl Marx: A Life.

1. Wheen tries to follow a current fashion and divorce the man and the politics. This is often done to Marxists because authors don't want to show what the theory of Marxism is. In the his introduction to Trotsky's autobiography, Joeseph Hanson makes a statement that could very well apply to Marx, too. "To make a truthful film of Trotsky requires taking him as a political figure, but not the kind characteristic of the bourgeois world of today. He was of a different kind-commited, like a great artist, to presenting a faithful reflection of his times, or, moe accurately, a scientist who has become convinced that the main problem facing mankind is to change the framework of our times, to end the agonizing epoch of warring classes and to replace it with a society built on the foundation of a rationally planned economy. He could be pictured truthfully as a tribune and fighter preoccupyed with constructing the organization required to win socialism on a world scale. To make a film of Trotsky in which all this is cast aside is like presenting Pierre and Marie Curie without their drive to discover the secret of radioactivity or the drudgery of fracinating huge amonts of pitchblende in order to isolate the mysterious substances, polonium and radium; or a "drama" of Loius Pasteur without his passionate interest in bacteriology and the painstaking laboratory work he engaged in against the advice of well-meaning friends who sought to persuade him not to waste his valuable time on chimerical and insoluble problems."
   Marx's writing on the Civil War In France and others show that he was indeed interested and active in the politics of his time. The Communst Manifesto actually grew out of his work with the international. Any revolutionary will tell you: It's not about the men, it's about the IDEAS. Revolutions, down-swings, life of a revolutionary revolves around the smell of a fresh print. The man and the idea become bound together flesh and blood, and to seperate Marx from his ideas is to cut off his greatness, leaving a messy bookworm in Soho, London.



2. If you want the best inside look of the man,Karl Marx, this is it.There are no weighty theories or politicial axioms edified in this cornerstone book.One book-example given is of Marx's young daughter,Eleanor,giving him a personal quiz.What is your favorite colour? (Answer-)Red! What is your favorite past-time? (Answer-)Book-Worming! etc.etc.
   Years later,after Eleanor got into a tense arguement with her husband ,she committed suicide.Gray-haired Marx ,the rebarbative rebel and Mary Burns the Irish red-head firebrand, had a son together,who later become an auto mechanic. -Yet,Marx was a sinecure thinker,thanks to Engles.Marx rather liked to play the part of the agent provocateur.He miasmatically smoked black cigars ,lazily reading the afternoon London newspapers,on his Soho couch. He was an arm-chair philosopher,and not an active participant in storming the governmental offices of repression.This book is the best personal portrait of a very complex and mysterious historical thinker .An excellent biograghy !



3. As the reader below observed, this book was a chilling read. Marx was a very strange fellow and this reading this book felt like surveying the scene of a car accident. It hurts to continue but one finds themselves so intrigued that they can hardly stop. For my part, I disagree thoroughly with just about every idea Marx had. Still, I thought it refreshing to read a biography of the man that objectively treated Marx as human first, ragamuffin later; Unlike the brief essay on him in Paul Johnson's "Intellectuals," which is meant only to slam Marx and infuriate the reader.

   I took half a star away for the a-little-less-than-constant humor (or so the author thought.) At first it was mildly amusing, probably do to its gauche inapropriateness. After the first few chapters though, it became a nuisance. How about this one? "Like another Marx, Karl did not want to belong to any club that would have him as a member." PUKE!!

   The other half star is deducted for a suggestion the author makes about three-quarters through, when discussing Das Kapital. He suggests that Marx did not mean Kapital to be a work of science, but a work of ART (he means this literally, not figuratively.) His evidence? Marx refered to Kapital as his "work of art" (my guess, this is metaphor). Also, the author argues, if Marx had already summed up the themes of Kapital in a speech a few years earlier (he did), then why did he write a 1000 page tome espousing the same ideas (he did). Honestly, with flimsy evidence like that, this claim looks utterly ridiculous - not to mention likely insulting to any Marxist or person who takes Marx seriously as a thinker. Enough to cost half a star.

   Otherwise, this book is an unbiased, humanistic read that plays just like a novel. Marx, of course, is a far superior character than any author could ever devise and in the end, my bet is that whether you love or hate him, you will find yourselves modifying your opinion to ambivalence as Marx (the person, not the manifesto) is much too complicated to love or hate.




4. I would not have imagined that a biography of Karl Marx could be such an entertaining and interesting read. This was. Much more has been written about the 'ism' than the man. This is a fascinating insight into his life, his poverty, his exile, his contradictions as well as his thinking.

   What was most noticeable was the remarkable loyalty of Engels - friend, ghost-writer and benefactor - who even became a stranger in a strange land (Capitalism) to help finance publication of Marx's ideas, often in the face of staggering procrastination by the latter.

   This is a very readable account of the life and carbunkles of one of the last century's most influential figures.




5. Let's write a book about Karl Marx which wants to talk about the Man, rather than simply about the Ideas. Sounds great, right? Except that in Wheen's hands, the relationship of the life to the ideas and the ideas to the life are brutally banalized.

   The opportunity to write a good biography obviously presented itself, but what we have instead is some charming personal biography by a man who does not grasp the smallest part of Marx's ideas nor any meaningful engagement with Marx's political activity.

   This book is so lame on the theoretical level that one would think that Wheen spent too much time reading old Stalinist schoolbooks on Marx, avoiding any actual scholarly work, such as Debord, C.J. Arthur, the journals Common Sense and Capital and Class, the work of Lukacs, Korsch, Adorno, Horkheimer, Rubin, etc. Wheen's treatment of the politics is less than worthless and mars his obviously generous sentiment towards Marx the man because Wheen simply cannot grapple with Marx as a whole human being.

   Instead, we are treated to tawdry discussions of Marx's 'psychologically induced illnesses' every time deadlines came due. And these are tawdry not for being uninteresting, but because we never get a sense of the juxtaposition between Marx the researcher (who happily spent a great deal of time in the London Library system) and Marx the writer who did not simply hate deadlines, but who struggled with the content and style of each line he wrote. We never get any sense of why Marx might be the single most influential thinker of the last 150 years.

   I gave it two stars because I do not see Wheen as intentionally malicious, but as merely incompetent. In a world where malicious intent and lack of scholarly scruple towards Marx seems welcome, this is not the worst book ever written on the man, but certainly not one worth reading.

5 comments about From the Hood to the Hill: A Story of Overcoming.

1. I truly enjoyed this book. It was an excellent read. I highly recommend
   
   this book.



2. This book was great reading. I bought the book after hearing his sermon at the Crystal Cathedral in Garden Grove where he was a guest speaker a couple of years ago.
   The author is not only a great speaker but an excellent writer also. I could not put the book down until I finished the entire book! It was very encouraging! The message I got was to not grow weary of doing the right things and to do it all of the time. Highly recommended.



3. Barry Black in this book show a man that practice what he preach. As I finished the book immediately I want to review the chapter on leadership for I could become a better leader. This is an excellent book for teens to read also.



4. Barry Black, the first African-American and Seventh-day Adventist chaplain of the U.S. Senate, has written a very inspirational work that's not only autobiographical, but just as much motivational. "From the Hood to the Hill" can sometimes even overwhelm the average reader with Chaplain Black's personna of almost near perfection. For myself, when I go to pickup a work that I expect to be strictly an autobiography, I'd rather have that than the many self-help tips along the way. Motivation has its place, but I would have liked to have read more of the man's real life experiences outside of his chaplain/military adventures. And at only a mere 223 pages, our appetites are left wanting more. The motivational book should have fellowed as a second release. Still very much worth reading though.



5. A very inspirational book!! Well written! I don't have words to give enough accolades to Dr. Black's writing. It is an easy read, written as though he is standing before you having a conversation. The reason i said this is a "must read for men" is that my son (who normally only reads books/article related to his career field) actually loaned me his copy. I found it so inspiring that I strongly recommend it for ALL but especially for young men who feel the pressures of "how to make a successful" life in America today.
   I have never written a review before but I feel so strongly about the uplifting benefits of this book that I felt compelled to write this one.

5 comments about Star-Spangled Men: America's Ten Worst Presidents.

1. This book helps you absorb a lot of material in 248 fast pages. The last 10 pages may be the best. A chapter on the 2 most overrated Presidents.
   
   Jefferson purchased 8 additional slaves While President! Also his terrible hatred of Alexander Hamilton, one of our real hero's. Read Alexander Hamilton, by BrookhiserAlexander Hamilton, American I bought The Long Affair: Thomas Jefferson and the French Revolution, 1785-1800 to confirm what Nathan Miller wrote.
   
   And a surprise, JFK. The start of Vietnam, initially cool toward civil rights struggles (Bobby Kennedy was the real force), too many women, and his enduring contribution, raising the curtain on the age of political imagery. I read several books about the Kennedy's, including the lost older brother. (I think that was the Lost Prince?)
   
   If you like those three books you also might like Scam, Jesse Peterson Scam: How the Black Leadership Exploits Black America, Vital Remnants: America's Founding and the Western Tradition, and AMERICA'S REAL WAR



2. Who is this Nathan Miller to bedevil the reputations of past leaders because they were fat,like he does with Taft,or unsocial,like Ben Harrison,or because they were products of thier time,like Kennedy,jackson,or even a saint like Jimmy Carter?I would think that LEADERSHIP,or the lack thereof,would be the single criteria by which to judge a president,but apparently a doofus like Miller is more interested in making fun of personality traits than in giving any real thought to the achievements,or mistakes of our presidents...Don't buy this book under any circumstance,unless you are one of those worms who enjoy making fun of people based on size,or personality quirk,rather than seeking any understanding as to why these men were either great or mediocore...



3. (original version posted May 8, 2000)
   While the title does offer a warning that this might be a "fluffy," sensationalistic, or overly cynical offering, it's fortunately none of these things.
   
   Unfortunately, that doesn't imply there's a lot of depth to this work. Miller does a competent job of picking ten of our less distinguished Presidents and compiling a lot of well-documented facts about their respective administrations. The book does a satisfactory job of telling us why someone is on his ten worst list. But the facts pretty much do this for us already without the need for much synthesis or supporting argument. In fact, it's hard to argue with any of his choices...with one exception.
   
   I did find Miller's choice for the absolute worst President rather surprising and far too critical considering this President's skills and accomplishments (although I should note that I'm not a big fan of the 37th President). While I understand Miller's point, I really needed some more support for his argument.
   
   Short on interesting arguments, viewpoints, or in-depth analysis, this book could still make for a nice quick read if you're looking for an overview. One last thing... if you're wondering if Miller may have forgotten any of our recent Chief Executives, note that the book was written before 2001.



4. Handicapping best and worst Presidents is a popular pastime for the politically inclined and even Presidents sometimes take turns critiquing our Chief Executives. Nathan Miller, best known for his biographies on Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt, takes his turn here critiquing our ten worst Presidents and there are few surprises to be found here. Miller singles out the usual suspects (Pierce, Buchanan, Johnson, Grant, Harrison, Taft, Harding), but adds a few surprises (Coolidge, Nixon, Carter). Miller addresses each in a chapter making the case against them repeating stories that have been told ad nauseum. Miller adds little that is fresh, insightful or new here and very little in the way of objectivity as Miller focuses on their individual personalities, relationships and temperaments more than actual achievements and failures. Even Harry Truman picked out most of these Presidents as duds in his autobiography and they're regularly on most everyone's list. Miller saves his worst invective for the very end when he lists his two picks for the most overrated Presidents, John F. Kennedy and Thomas Jefferson, which seem gratuitous, especially in Jefferson's case in light of the wonderful "American Sphinx" by Joseph Ellis.
   
   There's little here that reflects great creativity or ingenuity. I'd almost prefer to see someone write a counterpoint highlighting the accomplishments and achievements of these Chief Executives just to refute what was laid out here. In the end this book reads like something I've read before; a good gossipy read that doesn't break new ground. Miller is an excellent writer as demonstrated with his other books and his writing here is lively and engaging. I just find it hard to single out Coolidge and Carter when you have other ample targets like Madison, Fillmore, Tyler, Van Buren, and others.



5. This was an exceptionally well written and interesting book. Miller has a genuine knack for writing, as would be expected of someone who is a journalist. He also has a beautiful way of synthesizing historical events related to the presidents under discussion. It's an immensely enjoyable read. Miller explains that his choices for the ten worst presidents are subjective--of course they are. In my opinion, the list of ten is an very good one--with one or perhaps two exceptions. He is very hard on Grant, whose presidency has been rehabilitated by historians in recent years. Miller takes the old-fashioned view of the Grant administration, hammering away on the scandals, which were rightly bad. But Grant did much good for the country, and, contrary to Miller's claims, Grant actually enforced the rights of African Americans against public opinion. He used force when necessary to protect their rights. His administration included more quality men than just Hamilton Fish. Miller also impugns Grant's generalship--another an old-fashioned view. Grant was not just a "butcher" and even if all he had against the confederates was overwhelming force, yet still he was able to use this to win, while many other union generals still faltered with the same overwhelming odds. Finally, Miller is a bit too hard on Coolidge. While doing nothing may be bad from a liberal or Democrat's point of view, Coolidge represented the last president before the era of big government began (yes, government started this track even under Hoover). While unimaginative and provincial, Coolidge believed, as even Jefferson did and as many people still do, that government should not be too large or intrusive. We now have an enormous military industrial complex welfare state that feeds off of 40 to 50% of our nation's income every year. You may approve of that, but Coolidge represented a different era. As a matter of fact, the Great Depression only became "great" because of the Smoot Hawley Tariff and the Federal Reserve raising interest rates. Please, please, don't blame Coolidge for what other presidents or government agencies did. He's also a bit hard on Kennedy. But still an excellent and thought-provoking book.

5 comments about Speaking My Mind.

1. This is a great collection. It lacks both a booklet and legible track listings. But the production is great, the intro blurbs are well done, and the speeches are just wonderful. He can still make the hair on my neck stand up, still bring tears to this commuter's eyes. He is not just going through the motions, he is trying hard to get every idea and emotion across.
   
   Listened to after Reagan in His Own Voice is revealing. In the early years before the Presidency, he is bouncy, energetic, feisty, tongue in cheek. It is mostly about the message, but partly about creating entertaining radio minutes.
   
   After he is elected, in Speaking my Mind, there is the flush of victory and the many do-able tasks at hand. After the Challenger and the Iran-Contra scandal, he tires. Some of the feistiness and humor is gone. You can hear that he knows that what he can accomplish is limited by the days left. But he can still bring it for the Normandy speech or "Tear down this wall, Mr. Gorbachev!"
   
   If you like this ("if?"), you should get Peggy Noonan's What I Saw at the Revolution and Peter Robinson's How Ronald Reagan Changed My Life.



2. This is a good set of abridged speeches. The edits are well done by fading in and out. The speech titles are extremely hard to read on the CD. Great for the ride to work, etc.



3. Our daughter gave me this CD set for Christmas. I have been doing a lot of driving lately, and have been listening to the CDs exclusively when in the car.
   
   It's odd that I waver back and forth between feeling incredibly uplifted by re-visiting ... through his own words and voice ... his faith, integrity, dignity, decency, character, intelligence, compassion and love of country. And yet, at the same time, I sometimes feel deeply depressed, occasionally to the point of tears, because we so desperately need someone of his caliber now, and yet the pool of 'leadership' from which we will choose the next leader of the free world is filled with pretenders whose credentials are on an entirely different, inferior plane.
   
   The 'Reagan Legacy' can be seen in the absence of the Berlin wall; in the dissolution of the Soviet Union; in the feeling of dignity and pride that was pervasive in our republic during his tenure in office; in the might, capability, effectiveness, and freedom-preserving focus of the American military, which was the unflinching standard during his watch; in the unparalleled sense of economic well-being that permeated the 80's; in the resurrected life that was breathed into entrepreneurial enterprise as a result of his low-tax/hands-off economic policies; and, perhaps most importantly, in the love and esteem with which those of us who followed his leadership held him. He was an unparalleled American treasure.
   
   We have so unappreciatively squandered his accomplishments and betrayed his example. I pray that we awaken to that folly before the light from the Reagan legacy becomes too dim to rekindle.
   
   Listening to his own thoughts, spoken in his own voice, brings that fact home in a very powerful way.



4. 
   In the introduction, President Reagan expresses the wish that these speeches would give the listener insight into himself as a president and a person: who he was, where he came from and what he believed. The speeches are not about policies and do not include any state of the union addresses. Almost every speech is introduced by Reagan with his reflections on the times and the issues, with his customary wit and humour.
   
   My only complaint about the CD-set is the absence of a booklet with a proper track listing. The speeches are listed on the 5 discs but in a tiny font size so that one needs a magnifying glass in order to read them.
   
   The first speech, from October 1964, in support of Barry Goldwater's candidacy, is particularly stirring. The sound is a bit crackly here but that only adds to the magic of this momentous speech. All the others are from the White House years. Here are the most memorable ones:
   
   1981
   Swearing-in ceremony/Inaugural address/Address to the nation on the state of the economy. Reagan was the first president to use a prop on TV - in this case a coin to demonstrate the effect of inflation/Address on the air traffic controllers strike, quite a powerful one.
   
   1982
   Magnificent address to the UK parliament on the values of the West and our historic role in the defence of freedom/Inauguration of the USS New Jersey/The national prayer breakfast, on spiritual renewal/Christmas day radio address.
   
   1983
   On the struggle for democracy in Central America/On the massacre of the marines in Lebanon/The magnificent Evil Empire speech/Martin Luther King Day.
   
   1984
   Hoboken, New Jersey election speech, to enthusiastic audience.
   Republican Convention Acceptance speech, also to enthusiastic audience/40th Anniversary of the Normandy invasion, a very stirring and uplifting one.
   
   1985
   On SDI (the Space Shield) to the political action conference.
   On the upcoming Geneva summit meeting with Gorbachev.
   
   1986
   Memorial service for the Challenger dead/On the Reykjavik summit/Centennial ceremony for the Statue of Liberty/Tax reform act of 1986, a breakthrough for economic growth and prosperity/Washington dinner honouring Tipp O'Neill, showing how gracefully Reagan acted towards his political opponents.
   
   1987
   Momentous speech at Brandenburg gate in Berlin on June 12th, 1987: "Tear down this wall!"/Speech honouring the heroism of ordinary people.
   
   1988
   Veterans Day Ceremony: Reagan restored the dignity and honour of Vietnam vets/Republican National Convention tribute to Nancy Reagan for her campaign against drug abuse. The last address to White House correspondents' annual dinner/Campaign speech for George H Bush in San Diego.
   Farewell speech on January 11th, 1989.
   
   Upon his death in 2004, the most moving tribute to Ronald Reagan appeared on the Belmont Club Blog, in the form of an old poem by Thomas Macaulay:
   
   " When the oldest cask is opened,
   And the largest lamp is lit;
   When the chestnuts glow in the embers,
   And the kid turns on the spit;
   When young and old in circle
   Around the firebrands close;
   When the girls are weaving baskets,
   And the lads are shaping bows;
   When the goodman mends his armour,
   And trims his helmet's plume;
   When the goodwife's shuttle merrily
   Goes flashing through the loom;
   With weeping and with laughter
   Still is the story told,
   How well Horatius kept the bridge
   In the brave days of old."



5. What better way to remember the Reagan legacy than by listening to Reagan's best speeches.

5 comments about Warrior: An Autobiography.

1. Warrior An Autobiography This is one book I can review without having finished reading it. He is one of the great generals of our time even ranking with MacAuthor, Patton, Swartzkoff,Etc. My own personal opinion he is tops. He had to help try to save a country when there was little help from the rest of the world. As a political figure I,ll also stick with him. He may have made some mistakes according to others but no one else did any better. I stay away from politics as most have no idea of what they are talking about any way. I think he had his country at heart either way.



2. I enjoyed this autobiography of one of modern Israel's giants.
   The book was written in great detail on many of the historic battles and decisions that Israel faced. Sharon played a large part in the fledgling country's struggle to survive the onslaught of hatred and terror. Sharon also touched on the personal hardships he faced.
   The only problem with Warrior was that Sharon wrote it so early in his career (1980s) that I was left hungry for more information. I had to go and buy a more recent biography of Sharon to bring myself up to date on Arik's life and career.



3. 
   
   There are many references to Pierre and Bashir Gemayel (leaders of the predominantly Christian-Phalanges Party).
   Most of Lebanon, and the Christian Leaders had been particularly confounded by the rash and dash with which the Israelis' conducted their war against the Palestinian Militias, and Beirut was awash with gossips that the Lebanese Forces - LF - (mainly Christians) would perform, alone, a sweeping military - mop up - operation in support of the Israelis.
   Such was a request Sharon had asked of Bashir during his first and short `look-see' visits to Jounieh - Lebanon (East) but did not evoke clear-cut answer (nor commitment) from Bashir because LF had not been able to give viable practical assistance, least of all to do any `street fighting' in a densely populated Beirut (West).
   If LF entered the important green line (Sea port area) rushing into Hamra Street, civilian losses would have been immense.
   Sharon wanted to infuse his sense of urgency into LF leaders in order to gain time and face the Israeli Cabinet with a fait a compli situation of which the Cabinet had never approved before.
   Sharon left Jounieh under the impression he and Bashir had concluded an agreement -in principle- of `a military operation' to be performed when the proper time called for it and now the next phase was for `joint planning'. Bashir was led to believe that Sharon was highly depending on LF supportive participation.
   Sharon thought Bashir had fully understood him to support a `do it alone' military operation, i.e. that LF would attack independently from the East when the Israelis had tightened the noose on Beirut (West).
   Mismatch in person-to-person communication took on new impetus.
   In the first place, it had never occurred to Bashir to attack West Beirut because he was heading for the Presidency and his `election' was imminent and inevitable.
   Bashir's priorities were 1) Never to put himself in disfavour with the Muslim communities and 2) Should not destroy political bridges with Syria (Hafiz al Asad) that would come after he's elected to the Presidency.
   
   Sharon, a military man to the bones, could see nothing relating to `Lebanese Politics' in the middle of his `war against the PLO - Arafat'; he had found that the Lebanese appreciation of his sweeping moves - having also neutralized the Syrian Army in Lebanon - were meant to ask him to revert to the idea of `independent action in West Beirut. Sharon should begin, and the LF would follow'.
   
   As there are no secrets in Lebanon, pulling the blankets of `no commitments' over their bodies resolutely did not refrain Philip Habib - not yet tired of repeating to Bashir - `at no time give a pretext that would obstruct your election to the Presidency'.
   
   And the `drama' has never ended..............



4. A very good book. It goes into a bit more depth with strategy and such than I could really grasp in a few spots, but on the whole I found it very interesting. Good descriptions of and insight into politics, history, and his accomplishments and ideas. I hadn't known how much he had done outside of the military before reading this book: founding Likud, advancing agriculture in Israel and in Africa, and forging relationships throughout the world for a fledgling Israel. A good book from a most impressive man.



5. The short, turbulent history of modern Israel has called for extraordinary leadership. Ariel Sharon is clearly one of the most important of the leaders who have shaped the history of this vulnerable young country.
   
   I suppose any autobiography could be said to be self-serving. Still, I have always believed that any man has a right to have his own assessment of himself be taken into consideration in any evaluation of his life.
   
   But my purpose now is not to give an assessment of his life. Rather, it is to give an assessment of this book, as a means to understanding that life. As such, I would have to say that I think you will find it useful. This is due, in part, I think, to the fact that Sharon was a man of strong feelings who expressed them openly. But it is also due to the fact that Sharon always lived his life in a manner which gave him plenty to talk about. He had a zest for life, and a fearlessness toward death that inclined him to an extraordinary life.
   
   Sharon also had the good fortune to be associated in time and proximity with several extraordinary men, and he made decisions that put him on a level with those men that might otherwise have been quite different. His bold military initiatives brought him to the attention of David Ben-Gurion during the critical early days of Israel as a nation. Later, after he had retired from the military as a part of a national policy to retire generals before they got too old, he entered politics without getting the permission or trying to earn the favor of established personalities. He was lucky, of course, because at the moment he decided to found the Likud, Begin desperately needed something just like that to build the kind of coalition that could bring him a national position. But he was also decisive. That's the key. He didn't wait to hear what everyone would think, he just did it.
   
   Sharon's defense of his actions during the invasion of Lebanon are convincing, but in my mind, they do not completely remove the necessity for him to step down. I think he had to leave at that point. I do not believe he ordered the massacre of civilians. I didn't need his book to come to that conviction. I didn't believe it at the time, either. But it happened on his watch, and there just was no escaping the impression in the minds of so many people, that he could have done more to prevent it.
   
   As could be expected from any autobiography, there are several things that Sharon does not address. This is why the whole picture can seldom be obtained by reading only autobiography. At some point, you have to balance autobiography with objective studies by reputable scholars who can address questions the individual in question hesitates to mention, and address them fairly. Sharon's oldest son was killed by a neighbor kid who was playing with one of Sharon's guns. How did this happen? How in the world did a couple of young kids get access to a loaded weapon? The incident itself, is of course, a poinant part of the book, but some of these questions any reasonable person would ask are simply not addressed.
   
   But taking into account the limitations of autobiography, this book provides a very useful insight into both the man and the country. It will be on every reading list for future historians of Israel for a long, long time to come. Fascinating character. Fascinating book. Fascinating country. Read and enjoy.

1 comments about Walter Benjamin: The Story of a Friendship (New York Review Books Classics).

1. This is the story of a friendship between two of the most remarkable intellectual figures of the twentieth century , Gershom Scholem and Walter Benjamin. It begins in Berlin in 1914 and continues through their separation until Benjamin's tragic death twenty -five years later. Both of them were greatly interested in the historical processes of their times, in philology , in the meaning of signs and symbols, in Socialism, in Zionism. Scholem left Germany for the Jerusalem of pre- state Israel and became a central figure there in the development of the Hebrew University. He became too the great scholar who opened a new field that of Jewish Mysticism. Benjamin hesitated and seemed to always find the way to misfortune. But their conversation and their friendship illuminates fundamental issues of life and thought. This book should be read by everyone for whom the life of the mind is important.