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

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



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

   Most of the book discussed the Smith sisters --- Mary, Abigail, and Elizabeth. What struck me most about these three is how much they came to rely on each other. This has a good side --- i.e., there�s always a sympathetic ear to listen, or a shoulder to cry on, or a pair of hands to pitch in when help was needed. It has a �bad� side too --- for often one sister�s �concern� for or about another bordered on interference. And it seems that the first rule of the Smith Sisters was �Never raise your own children when they can be passed on to a relative.� But who knows, maybe that was just the eighteenth century form of �day care.�

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

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

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

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




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

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




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



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

No comments about Barbara Jordan: A Self-Portrait.

1 comments about Catherine Parr: Henry VIII's Last Love.

1. It was dangerous to be married to Henry VIII. His first wife was cast away and died prematurely; the second was beheaded; the third died in childbed. When Henry was casting about Europe for his next wife, Christina of Denmark is supposed to have quipped, "If I had two heads, one should be at the King of England's disposal." Fortunately for his fourth wife, she was merely divorced (and outlived Henry); but the fifth was beheaded; and the sixth too had a brush with the king's deadly wrath. Only by her wits did Catherine Parr survive.
   
   In the first biography of Catherine Parr (1512-1548) in a quarter century (since Anthony Martienssen's), Susan James approaches her subject as more than just the sixth queen of Henry VIII (which is the context of books like Antonia Fraser's, Alison Weir's, and David Starkey's). The present book is a new, slightly shortened edition of the 1999 biography Kateryn Parr: The Making of a Queen. The footnotes of the earlier book have been relegated to the end, and gone is the last section on Catherine's brother William Parr after her death, as are the appendices, including the love letters of Catherine and Thomas Seymour and a discussion of the painting previously thought to be of Lady Jane Grey. What remains is a lively (if abruptly ended) account of Catherine Parr's life, rich in detail about her before, during, and after her reign as queen.
   
   It is a Victorian misconception that Henry married Catherine for her nursing abilities--but she was well-versed in the medical arts of that period. She also had a humanist education normally given to noble boys at the time, since she was tutored in the same group as her brother, her sister, and their cousins, all under the keen eye of their mother Maud Parr. (Maud had been widowed young and took advantage of the independence this allowed; she was also a lady-in-waiting to Katherine of Aragon, who, ironically, was probably Catherine's godmother.)
   
   Rather, Henry became genuinely attracted to Catherine when she was still married to Lord Latimer (her dying second husband) and in the service of the princess Mary. No doubt it helped Henry with his competitive spirit that Sir Thomas Seymour was also courting the soon-to-be widowed Catherine. And it was perhaps key that Catherine (unlike Anne of Cleves) didn't offend Henry's sensitive nose: "she carried with her small jewelled boxes of lozenges flavoured with liquorice or clove or cinnamon for sweet breath."
   
   The notion of Catherine as Henry's nurse gives the impression--wrongly--that she was secure in her position. She certainly found her niche in the royal family, making peace between its warring members and restoring her stepdaughters Mary and Elizabeth to the line of succession (she'd had practice with her Latimer stepchildren, and this part of the traditional view is correct). And she made a good and competent regent when Henry was making war in France--almost too good, though, because her conservative enemies (including Bishop Gardiner and Thomas Wriothesley) began to conspire against her. Ever since the break with Rome, Henry had been growing steadily more conservative in his religious views, although he tolerated Catherine's progressive beliefs and her choice of his younger children's tutors (enthusiastic reformers). She'd had to keep her beliefs secret during her previous marriage, especially when she was a hostage in the 1536 Pilgrimage of Grace protesting Henry's dissolution of the monasteries. But now as queen, she felt the freedom to read forbidden books and argue with the king--tendencies that the conservatives exploited in their efforts to overthrow the queen.
   
   When the conservatives contrived to have Catherine arrested, she had her forbidden books destroyed and then took to her bed, sick. She was probably more sick with fear than anything, but the ploy brought Henry to her, and she expressed her fear of his displeasure and her eagerness to make amends. The next day when she was permitted to visit him, Henry baited her for another argument, but she demurred, saying that she had only argued with him to distract him from his health troubles and to learn from him. This savvy appeal to his self-concern and vanity had the intended effect, and Henry received her back into favor--and into his bed. Wriothesley and the guards were not informed, and when they came to arrest the queen, Henry publicly humiliated them. The conservatives thus fell from power, and into their place came the reformers, including Edward Seymour and John Dudley, who would wield power during Edward VI's reign.
   
   Catherine, too, had influence with the new king, until she alienated him by her ill-advised affair and hasty marriage with Sir Thomas Seymour. It was, finally, a marriage for love long frustrated--but it was fateful all around. Catherine herself died in childbirth (and the child appears to not have survived infancy); Thomas Seymour went to the block; and her stepdaughter Elizabeth suffered a blow to her reputation and nearly lost her life.
   
   Susan James has written an excellent scholarly biography of Catherine, illuminating her motives and passions and highlighting her influence on the future Elizabeth I (who shared with Catherine a particular "restraint in the face of religious excess"). Catherine Parr comes across as a formidable woman, a match for Henry VIII, and a role model for her stepdaughters.

5 comments about Nothing But an Unfinished Song: The Life and Times of Bobby Sands.

1. All of us have a story to tell. There's few though whose life, cut short at 27 years of age, can be said to have impacted so dramatically on the course of Irish politics and to have become such an internationally recognised icon as Bobby Sands. Guerrilla fighter in the Irish Republican Army, he was elected a member of the British parliament shortly before his death on hunger strike in the H Blocks of Long Kesh/Maze Prison on 5 May 1981.
   I shared a prison wing with Bobby for nine months in 1979. Later I joined the hunger strike that he had just died on. I approached Denis O'Hearn's biography of Bobby therefore with a little trepidation. I should not have been concerned. It is an excellent book. It tells not just the story of Bobby, the prison protest and hunger strikes but accurately captures the atmosphere of the prison - the good times and bad, the hopes and despair, the pain, the joy and the totally selfless love that is rarely witnessed between a group of males. The strength of the book is that O'Hearn does not attempt to tell what he thinks happened behind prison walls (as other academics have) or to interpret events within his own ideological paradigm. Instead he facilitates others - friends, associates and comrades of Bobby - to tell of the person they knew and allows that person to become alive and vibrant on every page.
   Most importantly, the book traces the development of a very ordinary, young, politically naive, high-spirited boy from a working class background on the outskirts of Belfast to the highly politicised, articulate, prolific, competent revolutionary that he became in later years. In this way O'Hearn informs a new generation of political activists in Ireland and elsewhere that they too can become a 'Bobby Sands' but hopefully never have to make the life and death decisions that he was faced with.
   This year, the 25th anniversary of the hunger strike, it is timely for this biography to appear. It demonstrates the global interest that is retained in events that happened over a period of 217 days in 1981 when ten men died one after the other in prison cells in a struggle to be treated as the political prisoners they were. No wonder that states tremble before the power of such an idea that cannot be conquered, quenched, bought off or tortured into submission. No wonder that from the lips of oppressed peoples around the world the name, Bobby Sands, is uttered with such fondness and admiration.
   Dr Laurence McKeown, former hunger striker and co-author of 'Nor Meekly Serve My Time: the H-Block Struggle 1976-1981.
   Nor Meekly Serve My Time: The H-Block Struggle, 1976-1981



2. The life in the Northern Ireland Prison system was a horrible existence. What these men and women went through for their people is something any student of history or of the cuase of Irish freedom should know about.
   
   The details of the "Dirty Protest" are enough to make a person cry. What the British government did should never be forgotten. The author does a great job showing how Long Kesh and the H-Blocks became a school - a place where people learned what the definition of freedom really is... and how Irish freedom was just like the freedom of all colonial peoples in the world.
   
   The death of Bobby Sands and the other 9 men who followed him is a story that needs to be told again and again and again.



3. Every now and then a book comes along that can transport you inside a moment in history, or an aspect of human experience, that had seemed remote, or unimaginable, and bring it close in a way that changes how you see the world. Nothing But an Unfinished Song is such a book. If you are old enough, you probably remember the hunger strike and Bobby Sands' death, perhaps as your first awareness that something was terribly wrong in Ireland. If you are like me, your memory is colored by a sense of unreality - the dual shock of men starving themselves to death as a political statement, and of this somehow being acceptable (at least to those in power) in the latter part of the twentieth century in a country as culturally, politically, and historically close to the U.S. as Ireland. And yet, while the thought of prisoners being kept in conditions that drove them to such lengths was cause for enormous outrage, there was another source of confusion and moral discomfort. After all, these were IRA men, and the IRA was waging a military campaign. The Brits were killing people, but the IRA was too. So who were these men and what did they die for? This book is an extraordinary gift to all who asked this question. O'Hearn's exhaustive research, including interviews with many of the men who were imprisoned with Bobby, makes human and comprehensible the development of political consciousness that led Bobby from an unremarkable life to one that inspired millions. For those who continue to struggle against any form of oppression, it is as inspirational as it is heartbreaking. With truly nothing, behind prison walls, Bobby never ceased to think, learn, and create - and to strive to reach beyond those walls. Any group struggling for change must make choices about how their part of the struggle will be waged - however limited the range of possible means may be. By illuminating one moment in one struggle, O'Hearn's book offers much for all of us to ponder.



4. This is a meticulously researched and gripping biography of the hunger-striker who gave his life in the struggle for political recognition of the Republican struggle in Ireland. Bobby Sands transformed politics in Irish society and became an inspirational and internationally respected figure for his selfless political activism. He later became renowned for his transcendent poetry and rousing songs that captured key episodes in Irish history. But few knew this man intimately even as he became an icon of the Irish struggle for self-determination and a member of the British Parliament while he lay in a prison hospital.
   
   Denis O'Hearn has put this to rights in a historically informative and yet intimate account of Sands' short life that included community and military activism and a harrowing journey through a gruelling and oppressive prison system. Through sheer bloody-mindedness, mental and physical resolve, and the capacity to recognise 'opportunities' in the most brutal forms of detention, Sands changed the trajectory of Irish politics. O'Hearn reveals a character full of ceaseless energy, buoyancy, sensitivity as well as political vision in a brisk, gripping and deeply moving account of Sands' life.
   This book challenges complacency, urges activism and rejects thinking within the narrow confines of mainstream political discourse. Bobby Sands, the activist, has been revealed to a new generation and continues to inspire.



5. very good book a great life story of a irish hero

4 comments about Die Nigger Die!: A Political Autobiography of Jamil Abdullah al-Amin.

1. This is the autobiography of the type of man who has long gone out of style in the black community--an original man. While down-to-earth in manner, H. Rap Brown had a understated intelligence that served him well. But it's his ability to translate thoughts into words that make this book worth reading. From issues like skin color to class divisions, Brown outlines many issues that still face the black community today.
   
   A lot of political works get caught in the trap of trying to reflect the intelligence of the writer, Brown does the best job of effectively communicating from the black street perspective.
   I'm sure he would like for everyone who reads this to read his Revolution by the Book, and when you compare the two you can chart the evolution of an original man, from street scholar to religious cleric. Read it for yourself and make up your own mind.



2. When H.Rap Brown's classic autobiography was first published, he was former chair of SNCC, the leading Black liberation group in the United States. Back then, I used this book as an introduction to the Black Power movement. Rap Brown was a grassroots leader, and he spoke the language of the grassroots community. In my estimate, H. Rap Brown was one of the most successful political agitators of the black revolt. With the exception of Malcolm X, there were few that could match his effectiveness of moving people in the streets. For that precise reason, Brown, now Imam Jamil Al-Amin, has been a key victim of repression, for fighting for black liberation.



3. H. Rap Brown has been called the african-american Jim Goad. In Mr. Brown's case, however, his screed is directed not at women and liberals but instead at "honkeys," "crackers" and, of course, "THE MAN!" This autobiography gives the reader insight into the anger that fueled one man's efforts to bring down "the system." Overall, though, the book is kinda insubstantial and considering the darn thing cost nearly 15 bones, there are much better books on the subject.



4. While rightfully cited as an articulation of Black anger in the 60s, there are portions of this book that are difficult to take seriously. Rap/El-Amin's hilarious descriptions of pilfering items in Lyndon Johnson's White House, the story of his being stopped by the Louisiana cops for wearing ragged clothes, his refusal to eat or drink anything in prison for 43 DAYS (last time I checked in biology class, no human could go that long without water) etc. come off like wild tall tales told by one of Richard Pryor's characters. Even when the book is serious, there is never a dull moment. His observations on Ebony magazine, poor whites, and the explaination of the book's title, will make you laugh as well as think. Oh yeah, check out his "Rap" early on in the book, the contents of which would make NWA blush!

   The recent noteriety of Rap/El-Amin adds a somber note to the proceedings, but in the meantime, read this. You can see why this wild, controversial, and colorful book was so popular in the late 1960s. A cross between Richard Pryor and Malcolm X! Certainly one of the most entertaining of the Black Power manifestos.

5 comments about My Past and Thoughts.

1. There is no question that it is good to have this edition of Alexander Herzen's autobiography, "My Past and Thoughts," though it is considerably abridged. The work is deservedly praised as one of the great autobiographies of the West. Well written and colorful, it acquaints us with the mind and spirit of one of the most important political figures of the nineteenth century. Herzen, darling of radicals and nemesis of conservatives (wrongly, I believe), is a seminal thinker and activist of his time.
   Herzen, a Russian by birth but an internationalist in spirit, knew most of the radicals of the era, Bakunin, Mazzini, Garibaldi, Louis Blanc. Yet he was in a way not one of them. He was too hardheaded and too reasonable--he knew what worked and what didn't. Raised in autocratic Russia, he had experienced prison, exile--and fame as a writer.
   This edition has been abridged by Dwight MacDonald, unfortunately leaving out some crucial parts, for example his relations with his wife, Natalie, and other more domestic issues. However, the original appeared in five volumes, and something had to be excised to make this edition manageable. Those who wish to read the complete autobiography should look up the Knopf four-volume edition of 1968. Nonetheless, this edition will do for most of us. It's a gem.
   
   Philip Brantingham
   Chicago, IL



2. One finds oneself drawn to Herzen. He comes off as urbane, generous, strong, empathetic to those suffering under the Tsar (and all tyrannies), dedicated to the cause of bringing freedom to his homeland and a wonderful writer. He seems to have known, or at least bumped into, all the luminaries of the Russia and the Europe of his time.
   
   This abridgement by Dwight McDonald, dating I believe from 1968, is of its time. The editor tells us that he excised those portions of the narrative dealing with Herzen's marriage, his wife's affair with a close friend of Herzen's, the loss of his mother and son in the sinking of a passenger boat and the death of his wife shortly thereafter. I wish that material had been included. I suppose an abridgement done in 2007 might include only those portions and nothing else, as we have less high seriousness and more interest in scandal and tragedy. In any case, I would have loved to read Herzen on these more personal topics.
   
   I should add that it may be my spotty background in 19th Century European history but I was lost any number of times as I read. Herzen is telling us about contemporary men, events, controversies and schools of thought. There are numerous footnotes identifying the people he refers to but I needed more--no doubt the references would have been understood by any educated reader at the time but that was then.
   
   That said, I'm glad I made the effort and I wish I could have met him.



3. In the years before Lenin and the harsh, bleak application of socialist thought to autocracy there existed a group of philosophers who believed in the beauty of the commune and its cooperation with a Republican government. Britain had Robert Owen and his factory town, the French had Fourier (the phalanstery) and Proudhon among others, and the Russians had Herzen. Here existed a time where the leading academics saw folly in violent revolution, and Herzen was by no means a demogogue willing to mobilize the Russian peasants in a siege of Moscow like a simple Pugachev or a Decembrist.

   This perhaps explains Herzen's stern dislike of Marx and Engels, for he saw too much of the Robespierre in them and their ideas.

   Herzen believed in democracy almost in a modern American sense. Indeed, much of the work is laced with arguments in disfavor to the flowering of socialism in Europe, citing particularly the cruelty of the police in France during 1848: "The Latin world does not like freedom, it only likes to sue for it." Certainly the tendencies of the Germans were no more progressive either. Instead at one point in the text the author suggests that those who "can put off from himself the old Adam of Europe and be born again a new Jonathan had better take the first steamer to some place in Wisconsin or Kansas."

   The selections and abridgement of the text emphasize Herzen's basic belief about reform: revolution is gradual. One has to breed engrained stupidity out of the ruling class and make laws that better everyone, like the English and Americans. Laws make a better society, not people: "The Englishman's liberty is more in his institutions than in himself or his conscience. His freedom is the 'common law.'"

   The text covers the demise of Herzen, culminating in his rejection on his deathbed by the new revolutionary ("terrorist") camps in Russia, headed ideologically by Chernyshevsky and best seen in the widespread incendiary and murderous practices of Sergei Nechaev. These are all topics of the years after Herzen's death, the tragic history of the latter half of the nineteenth century and the prelude to the pall of 1917.




4. Herzen is one of the many authors whom Americans never are exposed to and rightfully should be. He was a great thinker; he writes lucidly (although tending toward personal speculation.... you've got to remember-- he was living at a similar time to Tolstoy who does the same thing....) and CAN BE surprisingly contemporary for someone so long dead....

   It's understandable why Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, and Solzenitzen (sp?) are much more widely read than he is: they are better novellists and never got cursed by the fact that they were socialists (such a dirty word in the US!) BUT, Herzen is definately someone whom anyone trying to pawn themselves off as a psuedo-intellectual should read.

   One problem with this book: some of his best stuff is obviously just not in here (as it is his memoirs....) His philosophy is brilliant; some of his letters to his son are as moving as any I can think of (excepting perhaps Rilke's to the young poet...)

   His memoirs are a definate must-read.... for whomever is reading this review.... Just buy the book!




5. A worthwile read for anyone with an interest in 19th century history - or Russian thought. Herzen's narrative begins with Napoleon's retreat from Moscow and winds on through Nichlos II's reign to the larger events of Napoleon the III's Europe. At times a witty and fascinating account of both Russia and Europe during a crucial era, Herzen occasionally drifts off into somewhat tedious personal speculation.

5 comments about Brother Number One: A Political Biography Of Pol Pot.

1. This is an early, perhaps one of the first full length, biographies of Pl Pot, the man who lead the Cambodian genocide. A prodigy of a middle class family he went to France where he became a radical communist and journeyed back with other Cambodians he had met where the led a long revolution against the government of Cambodia that lasted from 1965-1975. Upon gaining power they emptied the cities and some 2 million of an overall population of only 8 million, died in Cambodia. He suppressed and committed genocide against the Muslim Chams of Cambodia and he deported and murdered almost a quarter of a million Vietnamese. Despite the fact that he also destroyed the Chinese community of Cambodia he was supported by China. In 1976 the Vietnamese invaded and Pol Pot fled into the mountains. He and his movement, the Khmer Rouge, survived up until 2003. This book is therefore outdated but well written. Only two journalists, both of whome supported the genocide, were in Cambodia during the war and therefore there was little knowledge at the time.
   
   Seth J. Frantzman



2. Prof. Chandler discovered the real face behind Pol Pot (Saloth Sar), the initially enigmatic leader of the Red Khmer in Cambodia. He wrote a hallucinatory and tragic biography.

   The background of Pol Pot is common for many Communist Party (CP) members. He was recruited by the local CP when he studied in a foreign country. For Pol Pot, it was in France where the CP was totally controlled by the USSR and her Stalinist doctrine. The USSR recruited foreign members everywhere in order to use them as antennas all over the world.

   When Pol Pot took power in Cambodia, he applied the Stalinist doctrine ruthlessly.
   The similarities with Stalin are eminently striking: power struggle at the top of the party and liquidation of the old fellows, savage party purges, murderous goulags, indiscriminate collectivization, ethnic cleansing, deportation, show trials, forced confessions under torture, affectionate with little daughter, considering as enemies of the State those Khmer who came from a foreign country, fear of assassination, suspicious, dictatorial (didn't accept the slightest form of criticism).
   Under Pol Pot, it went even so far that people who 'knew' an enemy where executed. The result: a genocide. Even children and BABIES were put to death.

   David Chandler shows us that Pol Pot was really a dedicated communist, a party man, an organization man, a utopian thinker who believed in his killer's utopia till the end: "I did everything for my country".
   A blatant lie: he did it only for his Khmer country and only for those Khmer who (were forced to) agree(d) with him. In other words, his utopia was more than nationalism, it was racism. For Pol Pot knew that 'Class and hatred had produced the victory. So hatred had to be maintained'.

   This book contains excellent explanations of the background of the Cambodian conflict with Vietnam, and how Cambodia became a chess piece in a world conflict between the US, China and the USSR. Pol Pot's regime was supported by the US, because Cambodia was an enemy of Vietnam, who was an ally of the USSR.
   This book stresses also the disastrous role of the feudalist king Norodom Sihanouk and the decisive influence of the US bombings of Cambodia, which turned part of the Khmer peasantry in favour of the Red Khmer.

   Pol Pot's regime is a shame for Western intelligentsia, because some of his cronies (Khieu Samphan) studied like Pol Pot at Western universities.

   This terrible biography is a reminder of the deadly dangers of utopian doctrines, if they can be implemented by a totally convinced individual who possesses a dictatorial power in a single ountry. As David Chandler states: the genocide would have continued, if Pol Pot had stayed in power.

   A must read.




3. I thought that this book was extremely well written and intellectually stimulating. While providing as many details about Pol Pot's life as can be found, Chandler also integrates this information into the recent history of Cambodia. He seems to believe that Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge can only be understood in the context of the times, and this definitely rings true after reading the book. True, he does offer a lot of interpretation and conjecture on Pol Pot's life and motives, but this is the job of the historian. Rarely do historical documents, especially documents about the Khmer Rouge, provide such information. Those who intend to understand and write about these events, are therefore forced to do this kind of interpretive work. So do not listen the first review given on this page. This book is awesome.



4. If you are looking for a history of the Khmer Rouge regime, I'd rather recommend one of Ben Kiernan's books. If you are looking for a well-documented biography of Pol Pot, you are not going to like this book.
   True, the author has gathered as much information on Pol Pot as possible, but that amount of information could be summarised on just a few pages. To make it into a book, you get a history of Cambodia - and there are better ones around than this one -, and lots of speculation about Pol Pot's psychology, which I found annoying.



5. I salute David Chandler for finding as much information on Pol Pot as he did. There just isn't much out there, which is a great shame.

   Chandler does a good job with what he's got. I can't fault the guy for his research or his conclusions. However, I never got any kind of sense of Saloth Sar/Pol Pot. What were his interests? What really motivated him? We'll never know.

   The version of this book that I read was updated to include Nate Thayer's interview and the last years of Pol Pot's life (to the extent that anyone knows about it). I'm eager to read Thayer's book (which is nearly impossible to get ahold of).

   I'm afraid that this is as good as there's going to be until a scholar in a Cambodian university takes on this project. There's way more information here than anywhere else that I've seen, but it's still pretty thin. I hope more comes to light on this important historical figure.

5 comments about My FBI: Bringing Down the Mafia, Investigating Bill Clinton, and Fighting the War on Terror.

1. This is one of the least political autobiographies of a public servant in a political position in Washington.
   
   That's no reason, in my mind, to doubt the veracity of most of what Freeh writes. Those looking for conspiracy theores or outright condemnation of political adversaries will be disappointed. Freeh writes deeply of respect for a large number of persons, most notably FBI agents and fellow prosecutors.
   
   It does make for an interesting, amusing, but very non-combative read.
   
   Even Bill Clinton, who receives most of Freeh's ire for being more a politician than a manager, is also described as the most charming and disarming statesman.
   
   It's not that Freeh is afraid to talk ill of any of his former co-workers, but rather this is an autobiography of his public career.
   
   He doesn't take the opportunity to hammer home points about policy, but rather berates mismanagement, favoritism, and a lack of ethical focus.
   
   This is a good read for someone looking for a shining hero. This is not a good place to find dirt.



2. Freeh comes across early on as pompous and a phoney and it carries throught the book. He keeps remniding us what a great father he is because he has his kids drawings in his office. He is twice politically appointed yet rails against Clinton for being a politician. He seeths about the investigation of a bombing on Saudi soil and why Clinton would not let him interview the suspects...? I kept thinking Federal applies to the United States, not Saudi Arabia. It's that kind of arrogance that makes this book easy to put down. Plus, He never goes into ANY interesting detail on ANY investigation. And he OFTEN points out how he never really knew FBI agent turned spy Robert Hanssen. Hanssen went to the same church, their kids were in the same school....YET the same Freeh who says his style was to be among the troops claims to have barely known who he was. (BS) He also rails against Anything Clinton yet, everything Bush is AOK... This book is nothing more than a Swift-boat FBI poison pen letter.



3. In writing My FBI, Louis J, Freeh has given us a microscopic view of how the FBI works and the numerable problems he faced during his tenure. He comes across as honorable and hard working, telling the truth as he saw it. I couldn't put the book down. I highly recommend reading this book to learn about how the FBI operates and about the terroism that we face today.



4. Louis Freeh provides an interesting look into the world of the FBI. The book takes an overview approach with specific vignettes of his time at the organization and how it evolved (or lack thereof) over the years. Freeh was director during a turbulent time when trust in the FBI was at a low and worked one of the toughest cases in its history with the Kohbar towers investigation. This investigation is the focal point of the book and done very well. He also covers a lot with the Bob Hansen treason as well as other stories. The main problem with the book is that it is light on details and the chapters often ramble on without focus. The book would have been better off from an organizational standpoint with shorter chapters more pointed towards the topics. I would like to have seen lesser stories but the ones told in greater detail. Overall it is a useful primary source but not the definitive history of his role in the FBI during those years.



5. "My FBI" was a quick read and a very interesting look behind the scenes at the FBI in the 1990s. Freeh discusses background on the major cases the FBI handled during his tenure. This book gives insight that you didn't get from the news stories. One of the controversial subjects in the book was Freeh's relationship with President Clinton. This subject may turn off certain people, but the bottom line is that Freeh did not like working for Clinton. That is not a result of politics- because Freeh went out of his way to be apolitical. Most of it stemmed from the many investigations into the Clinton administration like Whitewater, Travelgate, etc. Another small part of the book I found to be interesting was Freeh's take on former "Counterterrorism Czar" Richard Clarke. Freeh writes that Clarke was never a major player in national security in either the Clinton or Bush White House. Freeh writes that Clarke was a second-tier player that was rarely at any of the important meetings. This has somewhat of a ring of truth in light of the way Clarke has tried to recast himself as a modern day Paul Revere of terrorism, after the fact. Somehow I don't buy his self-promotion, see-I told you so attitude. Anyway, overall a solid book for those interested in the FBI and national security issues.

5 comments about Free Ride: John McCain and the Media.

1. It's not the Liberals as Rush has taught you for 25 years now.
   It's McCain. It has always been McCain. I remember his vacant stare on the tube twenty five years ago, and I see the same now.
   
   Doesn't this guy get any older than he was then?
   The media gives him a free ride, and we buy it, unable to remember what was said yesterday, let alone last year.
   "The economy is fundamentall sound."
   Remember that?
   The media won't let you.
   Read this book before you vote.



2. A good insight into the straight talking John McCain and what he is like when not in the public eye. While appearing to sometimes conflict with the Republican base, many are on safe issues. The fact that he is a true American hero and survivor that he supposedly keeps from talking about, it's a subject that always seems to come up. He's tough and challenging and the author treats him like someone he has enjoyed knowing and watching, but not without his own flaws, some admitted and others left to discern by the reader.



3. McCain has spent a lifetime changing his stripes for expediency's sake. From the crash-disfigured wife he dumped--after having numerous affairs--to marry Cindy to his cozy relationship with Charles Keating who helped cost taxpayers $120 billion to his instantaneous morph into a "Reformer" when caught red-handed in the corrupt cash jar to his recent favors for Phoenix developer Donald R. Diamond, McCain has been light on his feet and filled with self-righteousness. McCain says we could have won the Vietnam War if we had used all the weapons at our disposal, a thinly veiled reference to Goldwater's recommendation that North Vietnam should be nuked. McCain's megalomaniacal need to inject himself into the recent Georgian crisis showed him to be a demagogue who would be dangerous in higher office. Yet the Washington press corps rammer on about "The McCain Brand" and continue to cover for him. Read the book and learn.



4. John McCain is a marketing phenomenon who has been able to project an image that entirely belies his real self according to the authors Brock and Waldman. He sells it to the press who sell it to the rest of the nation.
   
   He is styled as a self-effacing war hero who never likes to bring up his captivity in public, except he continually manages to do so. Phrases like: "I haven't been asked so many questions since I was interrogated in Hanoi," or "I missed Woodstock, I was someplace else," or "Well, the longest place I lived was in Hanoi for five and a half years." (He actually grew up in the suburbs outside of D.C.). Even though the Senate and the House of Representatives are filled with people who served honorably and bravely, their names are never associated with their experience. For John McCain, the press will mention this experience of yesteryear almost as if it is a subtitle every time his name is written or spoken. On the other hand, if John Kerry mentions his service to his country, it won't be long before the media will accuse him of trying to exploit his record for political gain--not so for the Arizona senator.
   
   John McCain is a maverick and a moderate. If a maverick is defined as a person who goes against the grain and is willing to take risks, particularly political ones, he isn't it. John McCain has only bucked his party on issues that have already been popular with the public such as finance reform, immigration, and tobacco. His bill at finance reform was toothless to the point of being ineffectual except in helping republicans. Although against lobbying, McCain has a number of lobbyists who have, and are working on behalf of his campaign.
   
   Real mavericks such as Russ Feingold who was the only one to vote against the Patriot Act, a truly unpopular thing to do shortly after the attack of 9/11, is never referred to in the media as a maverick. Other republicans such as Lincoln Chaffee, Susan Collins, and Olympia Snowe have voted against their own party far more often than the "media-labeled maverick."
   
   McCain, the "moderate" has voted more often with his party than almost anyone else, and that means voting conservative. Over his legislative lifetime, he has averaged 80% voting the party line. The "Christian Coalition of America," as well as "Concerned Women of America," who want to bring "biblical principles into all levels of public policy," gave him high ratings. This is hardly the mark of a centrist. Surprisingly, the media make the excuse that McCain is making these concessions to achieve a worthy goal. According to the media, this is pandering to the party base by other politicians, but since their "intuition" is that it makes McCain "uncomfortable," it is a measure of his strength and character.
   
   He is a straight-shooter. Unfortunately, no one has waffled or flip-flopped more than a large stack, in the past eight years than McCain on tax cuts, ethanol, intelligent design, marriage, and anti-gay discrimination. The only thing he hasn't appeared to change his mind on is Roe v. Wade because no one knows for sure exactly where he stands having flip-flopped from against repeal, to indifference, to for its repeal.
   
   Legislators in both houses frequently work both sides of the aisle to come to agreement and pass laws. When McCain has done it, it was because he was putting principle above party, when it has been others, the media reports how they have been pandering to the right or left e.g. Hillary Clinton said that reducing abortions could happen by providing greater funding for birth control, an issue she has always held. However, it didn't take long for the media to claim that she was pandering to the right, and sacrificing her principles.
   
   The other free ride is that McCain is a man of character, which has been summed up by his experience as a prisoner of war. Nothing is mentioned of McCain's involvement in the Keating Five scandal where he tried to quash an investigation into the savings and loan malfeasance against his good friend and political campaign contributor, John Keating. There was considerable evidence that John McCain's office then leaked information to the press, which made the others involved appear to have played a larger role than McCain. He would later lie about the leaks under oath.
   
   Finally, Brock and Waldman talk about the pack mentality amongst the media. They travel on the same planes and buses. They eat in the same restaurants and sleep in the same hotels. They talk and share notes. A pack mentality begins to form. When new media members hear the adulation of McCain from those who have been with him, the "Halo Effect" begins to form.
   
   Yesterday, I watched Tim Russert mention McCain, the maverick on "Meet the Press." I think these authors might be on to something. See how many times between here and November you will hear or read about John McCain as a maverick, and John McCain, as a former P.O.W."
   
   Brock and Waldman wonder when those in the media will be introspective enough to ask themselves if they are judging candidate McCain by a different standard than others, and if such thinking is a disservice to the public. To quote the authors: "One might even say the reporter who was willing to ask those questions might even be a maverick."
   
   I couldn't have said it better.
   
   
   
   Also Recommended:
   
   Welch, Matt, "McCain: the Myth of a Maverick."
   
   Waldman, Glenn, "Great American Hypocrites: Toppling the Big Myths of Republican Politics."
   
   I recommend googling "Pygmalion Effect," or "Halo and Horns Effect" for those of you who might not be familiar with it.



5. This book is not a puff piece for Democrats (Obama or Clinton), nor does it portray presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain as an entirely hollow man.
   
   But it convincingly makes the point that however likable many of McCain's personal qualities are, the media has focused on them to the exclusion of nearly everything else. Including his values as expressed through his actions in office, and his less-likable qualities.
   
   As a book, it's not written to stand the test of time (which is why only four stars), rather a quick, undemanding but not insulting read. One that may arouse responses of "really?" as it shows you things about John McCain that, whichever party you support, I'd be willing to bet you didn't know.
   
   For example, that his South Carolina spokesman was a critic of making Martin Luther King's birthday a holiday, and praised *David Duke* as a...heh..."maverick."
   
   I didn't know that.

5 comments about RADIO PRIEST: Charles Coughlin, The Father of Hate Radio.

1. The book fails to deal with Father Charles Edward Coughlin time and time again on the air carefully distinguishing between religious Jews who he sincerly respected and sought to partner with against Soviet Communism and the radicalized post-Judaic secular Jews who he rightly pointed out were disproportionately the vanguard of Soviet Bolshevism, constituting more than 65% of the original Bolshevik Central Committtee. Coughlin also pointed out the Bolsheviks were primarily bankrolled by American investment banker Jacob Schiff, a point accepted by all.
   
   Coughlin questioned why those who cried for the post Hapsburg Czechs in 1938 were oddly silent on the murder of more than twenty million (20,400,000)Russian, Byelorussian and Ukrainian Christians by the Soviets or the murder of thousands of priests, hundreds of nuns and 19 bishops in Loyalist Spain 1936-1939. He wondered why the US did nothing against the Masonic persecution of the Catholic Church 1925-1929 in Mexico which murdered people like Saint Father Miguel Pro who died crying "Viva Christo Rey!" to a largely silent American press.
   
   Coughlin questioned the dupilicity of no one caring for action about Catholic deaths in Spain, Mexico and Belarus. He called the Nazis evil "plunderbunds" and "un-Christian". He called the Communists "Anti-Christian". To call Father Coughlin a Nazi is a blood libel.



2. Without wishing to simply restate the themes of some of the fine reviews already posted, one cannot help but be saddened by the fact that this otherwise good biography is so tainted by "contemporarism." As one who has actually listened extensively to Coughlin's broadcasts, I am appalled that Warren would make any meaningful comparison between Father Charles and Rush, Sean, and other conservative talk-radio stars. It simply does not work. Coughlin always based his tirades upon the almost reactionary clericism then dominate within the Catholic Church and a form of "Americanism" that has far more to do with the doctrine of the Ku Klux Klan of the 1920s and 1930s (their hatred of Catholics aside)and the isolationism of the same period than with anything about modern conservatism. The differences are so apparent and profound and the author's efforts so transparent that the conclusion is unavoidable that Warren has chosen to use his study to promote a radical liberal agenda. This would seem to be either a function of scholarly corruption or of intellectual immaturity. Regrettably the editors and readers of this press did not intervene to keep the author on the straight and narrow of simply writing a good history. Actually, if comparisons must be made, Coughlin's spirit is far more evidenced in the strident tone and emotionalism of the active intolerance of the ACLU for religious expression/belief and the war by the NAACP upon the heritage and identity of an entire segment of the American people. Next time Donald, do it right!



3. The horrors of the Great Depression-the bank closings, the starvation, the joblessness, and the loss of faith in the government-drove millions to question fundamental assumptions about themselves and their country. Similar economic difficulties in Italy and Germany led to the rise of fascistic governments preaching nationalistic hatred. In the United States, however, figures arose touting the same solutions but ultimately failed to bring about a revolution. It was easy for men like Father Charles Coughlin to exploit the desperation welling up in every corner of the nation. Often this exploitation took the form of scapegoating minorities or "international bankers." As the Second World War began, the radio priest and many others on the far right began their long fade into obscurity, but their messages of hate lived on to inspire new generations of far right figures. Donald Warren's biography of Father Coughlin examines his rise and fall as well as the links between this controversial figure and present day radio talk shows.

   The author argues that conservative talk radio pundits owe an enormous debt of gratitude to Father Charles E. Coughlin. It was this priest, broadcasting out of his Shrine of the Little Flower in Royal Oak, Michigan during the 1920s and 1930s, who perfected the techniques used today to spread vitriol via the airwaves. Coughlin was the first to create "infotainment," the melding of news events with a bombastic delivery style aimed at capturing a large audience. He was wildly successful in this endeavor, attracting through his radio speeches and his magazine "Social Justice" an audience that numbered in the millions. The subject of Warren's book was the first public figure to obliterate the distinction between politics, religion, and mass media entertainment.

   Coughlin's life reads like a fantastic fable of the self-made man. Born in Canada to devoutly Catholic parents, his life was unremarkable until he decided to become a priest and entered the Basilian Order after college. This Catholic sect opposed banking, usury, and other supposed ills of an industrialized society. Coughlin's later positions on the economic woes caused by the Great Depression stemmed largely from the views he learned from the Basilians. In the meantime, he moved to the United States to become a diocesan priest in Michigan. Placed in charge of a small Catholic church in Royal Oak, the young priest eventually took to the airwaves as a way to raise funds for the construction of a new church building that would carry the name the Shrine of the Little Flower. The first broadcasts, intended for children, consisted of simple Christian teachings. Eventually, Coughlin's vocal abilities and an increasing willingness to criticize public figures led to a huge response from the public. From his first lecture attacking Norman Thomas, he soon moved on to excoriating President Herbert Hoover for the government's failure to alleviate the worst aspects of the depression. Money poured in from adoring listeners, and Charles Coughlin was on his way to fame and fortune.

   The priest originally endorsed Franklin Roosevelt as the panacea America needed to cure its misfortunes. After the New York politician captured the White House, Coughlin often went to Washington to advise the new president on economic matters. New Deal officials, however, were suspicious of the radio priest and his ideas. The eventual falling out with Roosevelt led to the formation of the Union party in 1936. Led by Coughlin, Gerald L.K. Smith, and Francis Townsend, this political attempt to unseat the president by running William Lemke of North Dakota as a presidential candidate failed miserably. The priest, embittered by his loss, began to move to the far right by advocating decidedly pro-Axis viewpoints. The entry of America into the Second World War caused further difficulties: the government banned the "Social Justice" newsletter from the mails as seditious materials, threatened to file charges against the priest, and put pressure on the Catholic Church to force his retirement from the airwaves. Barred from his former avenues of influence and power, Charles Coughlin drifted into obscurity. He died in 1979.

   Warren's attempt to tie Coughlin to modern day conservative radio talk shows is amazingly forced. It's true that there are some shared aspects here, but there are more differences. The book fails to take into account how much America has changed between the 1920s and 1930s and the 1990s. The Great Depression was an event unparalleled in the history of the country, a time when unemployment rising to unheard of levels led to the emergence of demagogues who promised simple solutions for the nation's ills. No similar comparison can be made for the 1990s; a time of unparalleled prosperity thanks to the Internet boom saw unemployment sink to record lows. The only thing remotely the same during these two disparate periods was a controversial democratic president in the White House.

   Moreover, the conservative talk show hosts of today never engage in the blatant blather Father Coughlin indulged in; it's simply unacceptable to the American public of today to blame minorities for controlling the banking system or being the guiding hand behind world communism. Warren seems to think there is a comparison, citing a talk radio listener's on-air comment in the 1990s about blacks. But that is a listener airing a viewpoint not shared by the host of the program, very different from Coughlin in the late 1930s. Donald Warren's "Radio Priest: Charles Coughlin, The Father of Hate Radio," is a capable book when it describes the biographical details of an influential figure in American social and political events of the 1920s and 1930s. Unfortunately, it neither proves its central thesis nor sheds new light on one of America's premier demagogues.




4. "Radio Priest" is meant to remind people the author fears have both forgotten Father Charles Coughlin and may be unwisely underestimating those eager to apply his brand of media manipulation in the age of the internet. From the depths of the depression until shortly after America's entry into WWII, Coughlin, a Detroit Priest had become a political force of nature. Using his radio show and "Social Justice" his newspaper, he spread his message across the nation - a message that grew progressively overt in anti-Semitism and Facist advocacy. With the severity of the depression destroying lives across the world, the time was ripe for many to question democracy - as they had across the world, the popularity of socialism and fascism flourished across America. Though many figures grew out of the clash of these movements, Coughlin stood out - mostly because his position as a priest but mostly because of the eloquence with which he gave his fans the message they wanted to hear. He even possessed his own trademark accent, with its distinctive rolling rrr's. Coughlin attacked banking interests and polticians - codewords for the jews and those they were thought to have bought. Confronted with growing reports of Germany's anti-Semitic repression, he claimed sympathy for the jews, but attributed Germany's conduct to a natural response to Jewish Bolshevism. Ostensibly adhering to a religion which had suffered religious intolerance, Coughlin adopted the same penchant for mass hysteria as those who had victimized other Catholics.

   Though war with fascism forced him into a sort of hiatus, Coughlin's decline had actually begun with the 1936 Presidential Elections. Unsatisfied with GOP front-runner Alf Landon, and seized by an outright hatred for FDR, Coughlin campaigned fiercely for the Social Justice candidate, William Lemke. Those left unfulfilled by FDR and unimpressed with Landon, flocked to Coughlin and his allies. Among them, Francis Townsend seemed more dignified, GLK Smith had more energy and Huey Long had more savvy, but Coughlin possessed something of the qualities of all three. Though Coughlin had the power, he displayed little interest in using it for even his idea of a greater good, and the social justice ticket ballot was dwarfed even by Landon's showing. By then, Long was dead by an assassin's bullet, and his political machine in Louisiana collapsed under the weight of its own corruption. Emboldened by his landslide, FDR embarked on a strategy to fast-track the New Deal with legislation designed to end run a hostile supreme court and thinly veiled threats to pack the high court if the first idea didn't work out. Coughlin, on the other hand, now embittered with politics, lost much of his dignified veneer. Both in his own tone and those of his followers, Coughlin became more closely identified with all that was bigoted in domestic fascism. By 1940, Coughlin had been sufficiently cut down to manageable size for his own church's hierarchy, and the Bishops silenced him. The threat of prosecution for sedition further kept him in line.

   Doanld Warren argues persuasively that Coughlin's defeats - both in 1936 and when war broke out against those he had championed - were far from certain. Coughlin and others had long fed anti-Semitic hysteria in their warnings against the war. When the severity of the war was realized, hysteria against the Jews could have exploded in Coughlin's favor. Warren even cites outbreaks of anti-Jewish violence in American cities. Further, despite the consent decree that immunized Coughlin in return for his silence, the radio priest remained active in using the mail system to search for a new generation of adherents among wartime servicemen. Warren highlights the depths of anti-Semitism in wartime America, but doesn't do the same for the horrific conditions of the depression - conditions that made us ripe for Coughlin and his followers. Also, he loses his focus after 1936, when Coughlin and company become more outright in their bigotry. Lastly, Warren frequently telegraphs his own sentiments against more modern day Coughlins like Pat Robertson and the Moral Majority. Whether today's right wing approximates that of 1936 America is a worthy subject, but one that Warren's asides seem to cursorily accept as true - an indisputable yardstick of conservative religious bigotry. Worse, it telegraphs the author's intention to write for a narrow readership - something Coughlin was doubtless famous for, though admittedly on a higher scale. These faults wouldn't matter if "Radio Priest" wasn't already a compelling book. Luckily, the book is not only compelling, but substantive enough to rise above what's wrong with it as well.




5. This is an excellent biography of one of the most appalling figures in recent American history. Father Coughlin was a hatemonger, an anti-Semite of tremendous proportions, and often a liar. That ANYONE could believe him to be worthy of praise, let alone "the sort of priest we need more of," is a sad, sad commentary on America.

   It is hard to believe that Father Coughlin was allowed to stay on the air and spew his poison for as long as he did. I wonder what he would have thought of the death camps? Or would he have found a way to deny the fruit of his hateful, unchristian ravings?