5 comments about Hitler, the War and the Pope.

1. Although a history book and consequently hard for me to read, this is extremely well researched and clearly demonstrates the absurdity of the claim that Pius XII was "silent" during WWII. In your face, John Cornwell!



2. Rychlak gives the reader the whole truth regarding the role of the Roman Catholic Church during WWII. Much can be said about this book but I draw attention only to his excellent and successsful defense of Aloysius Cardinal Stepinac. Stepinac was the Archbishop of Zagreb, Croatia during WWII and did everything in his power to save Jews and others persecuted by the Nazis. He was later tried and convicted to 16 yrs prison by Tito's regime for alleged collaboration with the nazis, but in reality he was sentenced only because he refused to seperate the catholic Church in Croatia from the vatican to form a national croatian church. Rychlak brings cold hard facts to argue his case, something cornwall and others fail to do and instead rely on post WWII communist propaganda.



3. Like most of the Pius defenses, this book is at best when it sticks to its central modest thesis- that Pius was neither a vicious anti-semite nor a supporter of Hitler. Rychlak points to some modest pronouncements against the holocaust, the help given to Italian Jews, and the lack of evidence of anti-semitism to bolster this argument and largely succeeds. Going beyond that to "we did all we could" the book fails and ignores or fails to rebut some basic arguments.
   
   1. This was a Lutheran Protestant/Catholic Holocaust. It could not have succeeded without the active (and sadly enthusiastic) participation of many Christians including Catholics. While a few helped the victims or spoke against Nazism, far, far, far more took part in identifying, imprisoning and murdering Jews.
   The butcher, the baker, and candlestick maker became Gestapo policemen, prison guards, and informants.
   2. The Pope speaks on matters of religion and his pronoucements should be obeyed. By and large German Catholics went to church, and did not divorce or engage in abortion. Why not tell them they should not imprison and kill Jews and to do so violates church doctrine. The few statements made by the Pope were general statements directed to the world, not to the faithful. What was needed was to tell German Catholics (and supporters in other countries) to stop persecuting and killing Jews and continuing the holocaust. Had the pope told the faithful to stop, the killing could clearly have been reduced. German and Polish Catholics were never told that their obedience to Nazi doctrine violated church teachings, and the concordants between the church and Fascist regimes would indicate the opposite.
   
   3. The bible teaches that those who follow Christ's law may have a share in salvation. Many German Jews converted to Catholicism, their children went to Sunday school, and they attended church as dutiful Catholics and Protestants. Yet when Hitler came, he classified these converted Catholics as Jews: dirty, stinking, filthy Jews only interested in money who had betrayed the Fatherland. These former Jews were forced to wear Jewish starts and not associated with Christians Had religious leaders said that these converted Catholics were part of the church and should be protected, this would have put Catholic doctrine against the state. Instead, in a sad state, former Jews were readily identified in Germany and elsewhere, even to the extent of Gestap going into churches and identifying former Jews with the help of congregants.
   
   4. One thesis is that the mild, quiet oppostion, not really maifesting itself until 1943, was the most effective. Could anyone really believe that. Imagine if in 1935, German stormroopers came into churches and beat up priests. Religious leaders with beards had them cut, religious items were desecrated, and nuns raped. Would Catholics say let's be quiet, don't offend anyone, hopefully this will not get out of hand. If church leaders were taken to concentration camps and killed and Catholics identified and beaten, would we likewise say, keep quiet.
   
   5. The clear conclusion is that the decision was made to jettison the Jews, partly because no one cared, part because they feared the Nazis, and part because many liked the sense of national pride and economic recovery the Nazis had achieved. Few could honestly say that keeping a low profile was the course designed to best protect the Jews.
   
   6. He fails to discuss why in countries with large Catholic populations, the scope of death was the greatest. Poland had a history of anti-semitism, and over one million Polish Jews were identified, largedly by cooperating Polish people, and those Jews, women, men, and children, were tortured, starved, and murdered at Auschwitz, with Catholic prison guards manning the concentration camp, and Catholic guards arranging the murders. To be fair it was not only Catholics, Eastern Orthodox guards, Lutheran guards, and Christians of all types, people who went to church on Sunday, celebrated Easter and Christmas, participated in the murders. They would celebrate communion on Sunday, and during the week helped apprehend, torture, and kill Jews. To call this a Catholic holocaust is inaccurate and incomplete. To call it a Christian holocaust in which Catholics played a vital role is sad but true.
   
   7. One cannot escape the fact however that Catholics participated in the Holocaust and saw no contradiction between the murder of Jews and their religious faith. Catholic religious leaders had a duty to point out this contradiction.
   
   8. To lay the entire burden upon Pope Pius is inaccurate. We should contrast the heroism of a minority who protected and sheltered Jewish victims, against the actions of the majority who took part in destroying the Jewish population of 10 countries, killing so many boys and girls, fathers and mothers, in the process.



4. Ronald J. Rychlak's "Hitler, the War, and the Pope" is a fount of unimpeachable truth. It refutes completely the venomous accusations hurled at the Catholic Church in general, and Pope Pius XII in particular, concerning the Jews. Rychlak's book is sure to infuriate the anti-Catholic media, anti-Catholic "Christians", and all life forms that exist to attack the Church of Christ.

   Indeed, unspoken yet real and critical questions are "What about Protestant America?", and "What about Protestant Germany?"

   PROTESTANT AMERICA

   How can anyone question what the militarily impotent Catholic Church did or did not to stop Hitler's extermination of the Jews, when militarily potent, Protestant America did NOTHING for so long? After all, the facts are unimpeachable, and quite sad:

   1. Hitler invaded Poland in August 1939.
   2. Two months later, in October 1939, Hitler started rounding up Jews in Poland and sending them to concentration camps.
   3. Hitler then proceeded to invade Hungary and other countries, also rounding up the Jews there and sending them to concentration camps.
   4. During 1939, 1940, and 1941, Hitler exterminated at least hundreds of thousands - if not millions - of Jews.
   5. From October 1939 to December 1941, a span of 2 years and 2 months, during which Hitler was exterminating Jews, AMERICA DID ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
   6. America in fact did not enter the war until December 1941.
   7. And, America did NOT enter the war to save or help the Jews.

   8. Rather, America entered the war solely because its naval fleet in the Pacific had been SUNK.
   9. Thus, America entered the war for reasons having NOTHING to do with the extermination of the Jews that was (and for 2 years and 2 months had been) taking place in Europe.

   Given these facts, how can anyone seriously question the actions of a militarily impotent Church without first - or at the same time - questioning the utter inaction of militarily potent America? As Stalin famously said, "How many divisions does the pope have?" None, of course. But, alas, that is irrelevant to the historically ignorant anti-Catholic.

   PROTESTANT GERMANY

   Likewise, how can anyone seriously question the actions of a Church based outside Germany, with only a minority of faithful in Germany, without first - or at the same time - questioning the actions of the majority Protestants in Germany? Once again, the facts are unimpeachable, and sad:

   1. Germany was a PROTESTANT country.
   2. Hitler was ELECTED by the German people.
   3. In his electoral victory, Hitler received a MAJORITY of the German Protestant vote.
   4. Yet, in his electoral victory, Hitler received only a MINORITY of the German Catholic vote.
   5. Thus, Hitler came to power courtesy of German PROTESTANTS.

   Given these facts, how can anyone seriously question the minority Catholic Church in Germany without first - or at the same time - questioning the majority Protestant churches in Germany? For instance, what did the German Protestant ministers, such as the Lutheran Bishops, know? And, when did they know it? And, what did they do, or not do, to stop the extermination of the Jews?

   Clearly, all these "questions" being asked of the Catholic Church and Pius XII concerning the Jews should first be asked of Protestant America and Protestant Germany. This nonsense about the Catholic Church's alleged "silence" or "inaction" is more than just factually meritless. It is utterly hypocritical, and indeed hilariously so were it not so pathetic.




5. Thoroughly researched, thoroughly reliable. Rychlak has extensive familiarity with primary sources and he sticks to the incontrovertible facts.
   Please note, in reading some reviews published here, the animosity towards Christianity expressed by several people who obviously haven't read the book. This is a subject that should be approached with a cool head, an acknowledgement of the complexity of the situation, and a willingness to be truthful and fair; Rychlak has done just fine on all counts.

1 comments about FDR: Nothing to Fear.

1. This is a great book. FDR may be a favorite of yours or not, regardless his speeches desereve to be read. FDR was an inspirational speaker who moved the masses with his words. He has left us with many timeless and priceless quotes that can be found in the speeches featured in this book. I would highly recommend this book to any one looking for a boost in confidence. FDR's words make you feel like anything is possible. Remember "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself".

5 comments about Phyllis Schlafly and Grassroots Conservatism: A Woman's Crusade (Politics and Society in Twentieth Century America).

1. It's told in a fluent and lively style, though a little shorter I wouldn't have minded. A collection of memorable dictums by P.S. like: "Morality without intelligence may be useless, but intelligence without morality is highly dangerous." In the next one just change 'communism' for any kind of anti-Americanism of today: "America cannot save the free world from communism until our leaders learn that a communist is a conspirator against Christianity and democracy."
   
   P.S. is definitely a landmark in the journey of American conservatism. Not only did she stand her ground against blood-thirsty libs and violent pacifists, she did it with brilliance, panache, and great sense of humor. A natural leader of a lady. And she didn't "marry" any Republican President along the way. She pushed America's issues trusting the people would support her: the grassroots. And sure she knows how to mobilize them. The Right will be orphaned when she leaves the scene, totally in the hands of the new Inquisition at the Left.
   
   There are many nuggets in this thick history book, i.e. Alan Alda's appearance before the Illinois state to testify on behalf of ERA (the movement that wanted to make men out of women, disposing women of their privileges). Asked if he support his two daughters being drafted during a war, he answered emphatically "Yes", but added that his daughters would not enter the military even if drafted because they were pacifists, conscientious objectors. Great, just great, Mr Alda.
   
   If i have come to love this woman it is not only because of her style, her intelligence, her power of endurance, her sagacity, though any one of these qualities would make it for me, but above all because of her sense of humor, which the Right lacks terribly so much, and consequently is paying dearly for it. At a rally: "First of all, I want to thank my husband Fred, for letting me come -Ialways like to say that, because it makes the libs so mad!"
   
   Now, how can't you fall in love with this woman?!



2. Ms Schlafly's world-view would be laughable if it were not so intolerant.



3. Donald T. Critchlow has written a timely and much needed examination of the rise of conservatism in American political culture through the life of Phyllis Schlafly. For too long Schlafly's importance has been obfuscated by historians intent on discrediting her rather than noting her importance. Critchlow fills this gap. He brings to life Schlafly's political career beginning in the anticommunist fervor of the 1950s to her role in shaping Republican defense policy during the 1970s to the fight over the ERA. He also includes an important assessment of Schlafly's present political activities.
   
   Based on extensive archival research from various libraries and institutions, Critchlow's examination of Schlafly deserves the attention it has already received by the academic community and the press, including such publications as the New Yorker. This prestigious magazine included Phyllis Schlafly and Grassroots Conservatism as one of its fall book selections, which testifies to the book's important insights and balanced interpretation.



4. Finally, Phyllis Schlafly gets her scholarly due. While historians have focused on the periphery of politics -- dwelling into ever narrow corners and cracks of the American Left -- Phyllis Schlafly has had no honest assessment. Plenty of dishonest, superficial assessment based on hand-me-down "that terrible woman" stories, but little more. (...).
   
   Professor Critchlow is the dean of U.S. policy historians and he has taken a brave step tackling a figure so unpopular among academics. Then again, I am reminded of that member of the chattering classes who said, "I can't believe Nixon won , I don't know a single person who voted for him!" Critchlow batters that academic insularity to explain how and why Schlafly's message spawned "grassroots conservatism." Let's hope some who would rather not hear, do listen.
   
   The alternative offered by Critchlow's study is, to take a quote from one of her best-selling titles,
   
   "A Choice, Not an Echo" of the silly things constantly said
   about her and other movement conservatives.
   
   Wake up historians (left or right), you have nothing to lose but your ignorance!
   
   Jonathan Bean
   Southern Illinois University



5. Donald T. Critchlow, the ever-prolific profssor of policy studies has performed a daunting task. In this book, he wrote a critical but balanced biography of Phyllis Schlafly.
   
   Schlafly is the female new right activist who claims sole responsibility for defeating the Equal Rights Amendment in 1982. Previous biographies about her were blatantly partisan projects because their authors either attacked or fawned over their subject. The long-time far right activist engenders strong feelings among people familiar with her work; you either love or hate her.
   
   Phyllis Schlafly first appeared in national politics in 1964. That year, she wrote `A choice: Not an echo' which tried to explain why Goldwater was the `sensible' choice. Yet, because Johnson then-rode public sympathy over the Kennedy assassination, he won a landslide and she temporarily receded from public view. After fallout with the National Federation of Republican Women, she formed her own women's organization, the Eagle Forum.
   
   The Eagle Forum's veritable heyday came in the late 1970's/early 1980's when Schlafly came back onto the national stage. She became the New Right's favorite speaker against feminism/`Women's Lib'. Although Schlafly herself was a Harvard-trained lawyer and accomplished political activist, she instead emphasized that she was `just a housewife' who genuinely enjoyed mothering six kids. Schlafly consequently allowed the male conservatives to oppose ERA ratification efforts without themselves appearing sexist; `They' also supported women participating in politics.
   
   This woman speaking out against women's liberation also made for effective media coverage because it exposed political divisions among women themselves. The women who joined anti-ERA ratification efforts were older, more religious and had less formal education than their pro-ERA counterparts. Viewing homemaking as their identity, `pro family' women felt that the ERA ultimately called their own self-worth into question. Because they were so content with their homemaking role they did not want to concede that the same role was fact limiting for other women who wanted something else/more and freedom to pursue their freedoms. Having strictly defined social and legal limits thus gave ERA opponents the illusion of security even if the world did not always run as smoothly.
   
   Schlafly ironically has experienced her own sex discrimination. In spite of her best efforts, Ronald Reagan did not appoint her Secretary of Defense. She also has failed to get herself elected to public office. Despite MANY attempts made over the past 30 years---the `giant citizen base' which she always claims to speak on behalf of ultimately never transformed into electoral votes. These failures alternately prevent and save Schlafly from being held accountable by the `taxpayers'. She would not be able to function in an environment which demands a certain degree of party and/or ideological bipartisanship.
   
   Schlafly's positions for creationism, one-size-fits all reading instruction, and opposition to vaccines are noticeably downplayed by many other conservatives. Many other conservatives know that those areas do not deliver enough voters in order for them to win an election. Because most people continue to support the `liberal' position in these areas, Schlafly's influence ironically is restricted to certain `women's issues'. For somebody who considers herself an `honorary male' such political limits must be the ultimate irony.
   
   Critchlow notes that she continues to control the Eagle Forum, despite the token mentoring of younger conservative women who now join this organization through collegiate and youth chapters. The Eagle Forum remains an active force in American politics, but increasingly is being supplanted by `younger' organizations like the Independent Women's Forum who have a `fresh' appearance and concede the feminist movement has some merits such as the Independent Women's Forum. Because any organization needs regular officer elections/leadership changes in order to keep their group fresh and responsive to member needs and the charter, I am curious what will happen to the Eagle Forum when Schlafly dies?
   
   He also examines the contradictions between Schafly's public gay-bashing and herself having a gay son. In 1992 John Schlafly was outed as gay, verifying that GLBT people do come from all families. Schlafly is the first to insist that she did everything `right' and promoted heterosexuality, but still cannot explain away her son's sexuality. Presently, Schlafly does less public attacking of gays than the other new right organizations, but she still labels them a threat---essentially labeling her own son a threat. John's public support for mom's political activities actually might belie a more complicated private relationship as a result.
   
   This book's only real flaw is that in addition to a portrait of Schlafly, Critchlow then attempts to talk about the American right in general at some depth. He argues the conservative movement impacted American politics, even if not in the exact ways which the groups and/or public figures intended.
   
   Although it's necessary to know that Schlafly's ultimate start in politics came as a researcher for the infamous red-hunter Senator Joseph McCarthy (R Wisconsin), a discussion of the right in general does not work in this same book. Agreeing that some comparison of leadership similarities and differences among other new right women is needed at some point, I think that he veered off his thesis during a lot of this other material and forgot what this particular book was supposed to be about during those points. These portions of his book are still scholarly, but subsequently become a case of trying to do too much with too little pages. Critchlow would have been better served by writing a second general book on the American right and gender.

5 comments about Karzai: The Failing American Intervention and the Struggle for Afghanistan.

1. While the book does a good job setting the stage on the man known as Karzai, it would have been nice to be exposed to some of the other relationships he has with the folks he currently has running the country.



2. This is a decent book about a decent man. But rather than providing any penetrating analysis of the leader of one of the world's most volatile and critical states, Nick Mills provides a sugar-coated and overly simplistic story, reducing its utility significantly.
   
   The perspective provided is effectively Hamid Karzai on Hamid Karzai. The text is based in quotes from the author's interviews with Karzai followed by some supporting paragraphs from the author. Mills seems to have spoke with no one but Karzai. He does not quote Karzai's family, friends, aides, associates, rivals, or critics. The book, published in the fifth year of Karzai's rule over Afghanistan, does not provide the reader with any insight into the complexity of Karzai, his internal conflicts and perhaps contradictions.
   
   There are glaring omissions regarding Karzai's life:
   
   - The reader is provided a cursory mentioning of Karzai's long-standing relationship with the Central Intelligence Agency. A deeper study of Karzai's ties with U.S. intelligence in the 1980s (and perhaps more importantly in the 1990s) would be beneficial.
   
   - Karzai's break with the Taliban is presented to be too clean and neat. Alternative sources suggest otherwise.
   
   - Mills fails to look at Karzai's close partnership with Zalmay Khalilzad, an Afghan American and former U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan under Karzai. Khalilzad, in other sources, is reported to have spoken with Karzai twice-daily and effectively set Karzai's agenda (serving, in a sense, as a de facto chief of staff). Moreover, their relationship goes back to the 1980s to the Afghan jihad and Khalizad is alleged by some to have been instrumental in securing Karzai's election as president. Their friendship is an important story untold.
   
   - Mills asks no questions regarding allegations of Karzai's relationship with foreign oil companies that, at the very least, reached out to the Taliban.
   
   - There's no discussion of the allegations that Karzai's brother, Wali, is involved in the drug trade.
   
   A critical analysis of the NATO-led operation in Afghanistan only comes at the end, in the book's epilogue. We see some criticism of Afghan culture, even from Karzai. And that's helpful, but very weak. Karzai's Afghan nationalism is admirable. It's very much what his country needs. But all too often he blames foreigners for his country's problems. And while that might stir up Afghan nationalism, it won't help the landlocked gain peace with its neighbors.
   
   Finally, there are a few errors in the text. Balochistan is erroneously described as being part of Pakistan's tribal areas (pp.52). It's actually one of its four provinces. Also, a quote from Karzai gives the impression that the drug trade flourished under the Taliban. The group actually significantly reduced opium cultivation. The opposite can be said for Karzai's government. Indeed, many of its officials (ranging from low to senior level) benefit from the drug trade.



3. Nick Mills was field director of Boston University's Afghan Media Project when he first met Hamid Karzai. For three months in 2005, he interviewed Karzai, now Afghanistan's president. Neither mentioned Karzai's role as consultant for US oil firm Unocal, or his support for the Taliban in 1996.
   
   Mills observes that throughout the 1980s most US aid to Afghanistan went to the fundamentalists who became the Taliban. Yet the Afghan people rejected the Taliban before Western ground forces intervened in 2001.
   
   As Mills writes, "The rapid defeat of the Taliban in 2001, and the countrywide celebration of their ouster, calls into question the need for the large contingent of coalition forces ..." He regrets the huge civilian casualties due to USAF and RAF bombing and suggests that Afghan regional forces `would have been more successful in keeping the Taliban at bay than the Western coalition has been'.
   
   Mills states that Bush's decisions `have consistently undermined the security of Afghanistan'. He let bin Laden escape, heroin production has soared, rebuilding has stalled and most aid money goes to Western `consultants' and corrupt officials.
   
   Mills concludes that occupation by NATO forces and private security firms is fuelling national resistance: NATO's intervention is failing.



4. This book gives the reader an honest look at the levels of intrigue that exist when the U.S. tries to "promote democracy" on foreign soil. It also gives a wonderful portrait of a leader who is trying to maintain the integrity of his nation against incredible odds. This book is a must-read for anyone interested in the politics of the war on terror and for anyone who has already forgotten that the war on terror began in Afghanistan. At times the book sweeps the reader up in stories that could be in a thrilling action/adventure novel -- but remember: this is real and current history in the making.



5. Hamid Karzai comes across as an intelligent man, rooted in his culture yet committed to restoring normalcy to his country by pulling it up by its bootstraps from feudalism into modernism. A man aware of the window of opportunity he has to achieve his objectives. Although not explicitly stated, one senses between the lines the disappointment Karzai must feel for being left out in the cold by the US in favor of Iraq.
   The language is straightforward and simple. The book can be read in a few hours. Much of the information is known but there are nuggets that bring the man himself, an alien culture and country closer to a Western reader. If read in combination with Rory Stewart's ethnographic travelogue of his month-long walk across Aghanistan "The Spaces In Between", the reader will have a framework for evaluating US policy and actions on the ground in Afghanistan.
   I have just given the book as a gift.

5 comments about Callus On My Soul: A Memoir: A Memoir.

1. One of the most profound statements in the book was when Mr. Gregory was explaining racism, and I quote "Those old illiterate Negroes were all the White folks had to validate who they were. Could you imagine being a redneck who knew he was an illiterate cracker, and who knew that, as White as he was, he could never be president of the USA? As white as he was, he was never going to drive a Mercedes or go to Paris. So the only thing a redneck had to play with was niggers." and that is why when civil rights workers started educating the black folks about slavery the white rednecks were willing to kill to keep them. Because they were not only taking their niggers they were taking their dignity and self respect.



2. Dick Gregory's memoir is among the most honest and touching autobiographies available today. From the first page, I was drawn into his experience as if I were actually transitioning through pre-Civil Rights Era, the Movement, and the post-era that has evolved into today. Sometimes the pain of Gregory's experiences was so real that I literally felt the dull pain of sympathy in my gut, the tragic feeling that accompanies love or indignation. Callus On My Soul was a history lesson that will never appear on the pages of American textbooks, and a reality check that I will never forget.



3. With choices come sacrifice, and in Dick Gregory's book CALLUS ON MY SOUL, he tells the story of his life and shares with readers both the positive things he gained and the things he has had to forego as a result of his decisions. He tells of his childhood, which included a life of poverty, racism, and an absentee father. But more importantly, Gregory shares how he learned as a child to use humor as a way to transcend his difficult life experiences and gain peer acceptance. This would serve as an omen for the important role that comedy would play in his later life. As Gregory tells of his developing career as a comedian, readers quickly see the sacrifices that he and his family made in order to achieve the level of fame that he ultimately became known for. A great portion of the book is dedicated to Gregory's experiences and commitment to social causes. He relates to readers his experiences in the civil rights and human rights struggles, and tells of his personal experiences with both noteworthy and little known social activists. He tells of how he and other activists sacrificed their careers, physical safety, and time with family in order to stand up for what they believe in.

   Because Dick Gregory has played such an integral role in so many historical events relating to civil and human rights, this book is so much more than a memoir. Anyone who picks this book up receives a new insight into many of the events that shaped the history of the United States. In addition, Gregory shares his own political views and opinions with a boldness and clarity that makes it evident that he is indeed an activist at heart. He also tells of the unwavering support of his wife and ten children as he fasted, went on cross country marathons, and even traveled the world leaving them at home. CALLUS ON MY SOUL is a political, historical, and personal account of a man who has dedicated much of his life to a number of worthy causes.

   Reviewed by Stacey Seay
   The RAWSISTAZ Reviewers




4. Brother Greg believes O.J. is innocent. That is hard to believe, and there is some paranoia with his thinking. Conspiracy theories make for good fiction, but some of it is enlightening and believable. Mr. Gregory is a great man, and has a lot of knowledge. He is very smart. He is very funny, but he is also obsessed. If he calms down, he would do better. I love him. He is trying so hard to stop world hunger, and wants people to be slim and trim, and not fat as a pig. He wants justice. If people were more like Mr. Gregory, the world would be a much better place.



5. I am so awed and inspired by reading Dick Gregory's latest book. His life reads like an adventure through the most turbulent times of the 20th century. Friend to presidents, civil rights leaders, and industry giants, Dick Gregory doesn't fail to enlighten, inspire and fascinate the reader. He has been there done that for over 35 years. Now that our country faces a crisis, I hope Dick Gregory will be there for us with his commentary, his insight and wisdom.

   I wish he would have written more about his successes in the '80's with his weight loss programs, his work with the National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers (NOCIRC) and his circumcision trauma, the Black Panther party, Tupac Shakur, the Bush family, and his vision for the future.

   Ah, but hopefully his next book will include that! I recommend this book highly. I only wish I could hear him lecture in person.

5 comments about American Heroines: The Spirited Women Who Shaped Our Country.

1. This is a well written book and very interesting. I recommend it to everyone.



2. THIS IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE MOST AMAZING BOOKS OF ITS KIND THAT I HAVE READ IN A LONG TIME."AMERICAN HEROINES" IS A VERY SPECIAL BOOK AND REALLY SHOULD BE REQUIRED READING IN MOST HIGH SCHOOLS SO MOST STUDENTS CAN GET TO KNOW WHAT GREAT DEEDS THESE WONDERFUL WOMEN PERFORMED TO SHAPE AND MOLD THIS GREAT NATION OF OURS. UP UNTIL NOW ALOT OF THESE WOMEN AND THE GREAT THINGS THEY HAVE DONE HAVE GONE UNOTICED BUT SEN. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISONS BOOK "AMERICAN HEROINES" HAS GIVEN A NEW LIGHT TO ALL OF THESE WONDERFUL WOMEN AND WHAT GREAT THINGS THEY DID. IF YOUR LOOKING FOR A GREAT GIFT FOR SOMEONE SPECIAL:A FRIEND, FAMILY MEMBER, A SOLDIER SERVERING OVER SEAS THEAN GET THEM "AMERICAN HEROINES" BY KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON IT WOULD MAKE A PERFECT GIFT FOR THAT SPECIAL SOMEONE IN YOUR LIFE. AND WHO EVER YOU GIVE THIS BOOK TO THEY CAN LEARN ABOUT SOME VERY SPIRITED PEOPLE HELPED SHAPED THIS GREAT COUNTRY.



3. Senator Hutchison is a woman who has risen above stereotypes to become the first woman in Texas elected to the Senate. That says a lot in a land where men still open doors for women and call women "ma'am" or "miss" even though you may be a complete stranger. Put aside your political beliefs and you will have a book highlighting women who conquered the "glass ceiling" despite what was the norm of the times. These women may be from Timbuktu for all we know, but they are women whom our daughters can learn how to reach beyond gender stereotypes. Of course Senator Hutchison will include more women from Texas than from elsewhere, she grew up in Texas. These are women who influenced her and helped her achieve the "first" status as well. Again, putting aside politics, this book is a good book on the power of women who can rise despite criticism and social norms.



4. In reading Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison's (R-TX) book, American Heroines: The Spirited Women Who Shaped Our Country, I found a large error. The error was in her reference to NASA astronaut, Dr. Sally Ride;
   
   1. On page 207, 2nd paragraph Senator Hutchison writes: "Fast forward to June 18, 1983, and Dr. Ride became the first female astronaut for a mission into outer space."
   
   2. Continuing on page 207, 3rd paragraph: "In 1983, she became the first women in space..."
   
   Dr. Ride was not the first woman to fly in outer space; she was the first "American" woman to fly in outer space and the third woman in outer space. The two other women that preceded her were Valentina Tereshkova (Vostok 6 in 1963) and Svetlana Savitskaya (Soyuz T-7 in 1982), both from the former Soviet Union. Some may argue that it is correct to say that Dr. Ride was the first women "astronaunt" as the former Soviet Union women were referred to as "cosmonaunts." I do not agree, still incorrect information.
   
   One review of the book said that Senator Hutchinson's "combines biography and social history to shed light on what she calls the indomitable spirit of American women which has shaped both the country's history and its society." Dr. Sally Ride's contribution to space flight and American women should be celebrated and she is an important a role model for women but it is also important that her accomplishments be presented correctly.
   
   It is unfortunate that this information was not researched more thoroughly or corrected by the editor. Several online encyclopedias contain the correct information.
   [...]



5. Traversing the diverse footprints of America's influential women seems a daunting order for one book. American Heroines: The Spirited Women Who Shaped Our Country by United States Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison navigates the lives and accomplishments of America's remarkable women, spanning from Mary Austin Holley to Sandra Day O'Connor and Amelia Earhart to Jackie Joyner-Kersee. The book reads like a collection of short stories, so it's perfect for the reader-on-the go. Read a chapter an evening, and be enlightened by a brief biography of an influential American woman, then commentary on the significance of her historical impact. Hutchison keeps the narrative light and lively, and she infuses the biography with her perspective on her subjects' lasting contribution.
   Diversity of subject strengthens this book. Senator Hutchinson groups the chapters into similar sections, such as "Pioneers and Preservationists," "Education for Everyone," "Conquering the Skies," and "Public Lives, Public Service." While Hutchinson is a political conservative, her biographical praise crosses back and forth across the ideological aisle - she gives equal admiration to Geraldine Ferraro and Madeline Albright as she does to Elizabeth Dole and Condoleezza Rice. And, her esteem reaches beyond politics. She commends healthcare pioneer Clara Barton, astronaut Sally Ride, and artist Mary Cassatt.
   The colloquial writing proves a little distracting. One more word-cutting and cleaning edit would have improved the work. However, Hutchinson voice is the book's finest attribute, and that remains clear throughout the biographies. Her admiring observations provide a personal touch to the history. An extraordinary woman herself, Hutchinson is the first woman to represent Texas in the U.S. Senate. The book highlights her own resourcefulness and intelligence and reveals her affection for her home state. She's a little partial to the ladies of Texas in her subject choice, but what Texan isn't?
   Don't read this book if you're looking for a challenging and intellectual dose of history - go buy a textbook instead. But, read American Heroines: The Spirited Women Who Shaped Our Country for an enriching, entertaining and comprehensive tour of the lives and accomplishments of 45 outstanding American women.

5 comments about Joseph P. Kennedy: The Mogul, the Mob, the Statesman, and the Making of an American Myth.

1. It is obvious from reading this book that the author holds Joe Kennedy Sr. in very low esteem and cares little for the Kennedys in general. Based on the information he presents, one can clearly see why. If only a fraction of it is true; Joe Kennedy could best be described as a ruthless, self-serving, border-line criminal and stock manipulator; an inveterate philanderer, ignoble husband and father, and, all-in-all, a poor excuse for a human being.
   
   It isn't clear, however, as to whether the author held these views when he began researching the book or came to those conclusions after studying his subject. The answer to that question would seem to bear heavily on the efficacy of the subject matter he presents. Did the author, for example, pick and choose his data? If so, although it seems highly unlikely, Joe Kennedy may have had some redeeming qualities which went untold. Perhaps he didn't kick his dog.
   
   It is also somewhat disconcerting that throughout the book the author occasionally throws in gratuitous pejoratives seemingly intended to cast aspersions on Joe, although, in light of the evidence, Joe certainly needs none. And, at other times, he tells us what some of those who knew Joe were thinking and lets us know what they thought of Joe. One is left to wonder how he knows, since he rarely references these sources.
   
   Nevertheless, based upon its numerous notes and references, this is a well researched and well substantiated biography of a man who, although extremely wealthy and politically powerful, spent most of his life in the shadows. In later life, he used his wealth and power to give America the illusion of "Camelot," but during his lifetime he did much more than that. During World War I, for example, he dodged the draft. Then, with the advent of prohibition, he used his father's connections in Canada and England to arrange booze shipments for delivery to underworld characters in the United States, such as Al Capone. He never worked as a "bootlegger" in a romantic sense. He never outraced the Coast Guard to deliver the goods. Instead, Joe just made the money. Later, he went to Hollywood where he made his mark and took Gloria Swanson as his mistress. While there, he managed her affairs (business) and lavished her with expensive gifts - most of which were later found to have been paid for with Gloria's own money. (Geez, what a guy!) Then, if truth be told, Joe established and helped run various stock pools aimed at manipulating the stock market to the benefit of the pool members. (This is said to have been one of the causes of the stock market crash of 1929 and the resulting "Great Depression.") Later, Joe helped get Franklin D. Roosevelt elected president and, as a result, managed to get himself appointed as the U.S. Ambassador to Great Britain shortly before World War II. Unfortunately, Joe didn't understand world affairs, seemed to side with the fascists, and never grasped the fact that he was in England to represent the president of the United States, not to express his own views and make more money. So, when the State Department was finally forced to bypass him in the decision making process, President Roosevelt demanded and accepted his resignation. Following the war, Joe had a frontal lobotomy performed on his daughter, Rosemary, ruining her life; then set about furthering his son's, John F. Kennedy's, political career through one nefarious scheme after another. Joe even managed to preclude JFK's being court marshaled for dereliction of duty for letting his PT boat (PT-109) be rammed, causing two deaths, and instead arranged to have JFK cast as a national hero. The rest, as they say, is history.
   
   Bottom line: Those who are more interested in the Kennedy's than I am, and knew a lot more about the Kennedys than I did, may find this book repetitive of previous works. Those who aren't, and particularly those who fell for the Camelot myth, will certainly find it to be a real eye opener, particularly since old Joe still wields some measure of power having tried very hard to mold his sons in his own image.



2. If you have never read anything in depth about either the Kennedy family or Joseph Kennedy (sins of the father, the founding father) you might go thru this book and discover a revelation or two. If you have, then this book will come across as trite, boring and a bit fraudulent. By the latter, I mean the book promises new revelations, and delivers nothing more than the usual information that any "light" student of the Kennedys and Joe in particular already know. Worse yet, some of the contentions are incorrect and almost none of them are backed up by source materials in the book's note section. For instance, the author suggests that JFK's doctors knew he would not live thru a second term, and further suggest that the assassin's bullet spared us-Citizens that is- from watching our president die in office post 1964. Yet, the author offers absolutely no source information for this contention. Yes, anybody who has read more than two Kennedy books knows that JFK was ill throughout most his life; but that same person would know that most of his life threatening ailments were under control by the time he was elected president. (The fact that these illnesses were kept secret from the general public does not make them fatal within the second term, as the author implies!). There are other points in this book where it is evident that the author just plain does not like Joe Kennedy. That's ok. A little odium dripped on a biographical protagonist as deserving as Joe Kennedy can be forgiven- after all the man did do a great many horrible things in his life time. But when that level of despise effects the quality of ones research and ultimately hobbles ones effort, than a little restraint might have been appropriate. Don't bother with this book.



3. The book was a great insight into JPK and gives the reader a more solid understanding of his descendants. It also sheds a great deal of light on anti-Irish sentiments and gives an almost psycho-social explanation for JPK's actions based on the discrimination he encountered as a youth. One review stated that there was too much anecdotal information that is not properly accounted for. This may be true. However, i always enjoy a biography that explains the subject matter (i.e.JPK) in the historical context in which they lived in. This was done masterfully by Mr. Schwarz.



4. If you're a follower of the Kennedy saga, there may be little new material here in the biography, JOSEPH P. KENNEDY. But it's interesting and highly readable. It covers everyone from JPK's ancesters in Ireland to Caroline and John Jr.'s generation. Jackie comes off well. But there are a lot of unpleasant things about Rose I'd never heard before. And there are things I knew about but never knew the truth behind -- like the tragedy of Rosemary.

   As I read the book, I thought he made statements that would be considered controversial. But as I read on, and looked at the notes and bibliography, I realized Mr. Schwarz did indeed appear to be well informed. It's oddly written, with some really long sentences and some anecdotes stuck in totally out of any time sequence. If only for the insights into the worlds of politics and Hollywood, it's well worth your time. And it's pretty enjoyable.




5. I thought I knew a lot about the Kennedy family before, but this book opened up a whole new world. It's really fascinating reading, especially if you like to read about the Kennedy family.

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.

5 comments about The Best Lawyer in a One-Lawyer Town.

1. Dale Bumpers recounts his formative years with honesty, verve, and a wonderful sense of humor. Sparing us a blow-by-blow account of his years as an influential member of the United States Senate, Bumpers instead gives us the gift of riding along for the journey as he looks back on his life and remembers the lessons he learned from his father in Depression-era Arkansas. We enjoy a remarkable whirlwind tour -- through high school, college and law school; through tragedy; through the years of simultaneously serving as city attorney, family hardware-store operator, lawyer, husband, and father; through the many often-zany legal cases and clients with whom Bumpers worked; and, finally, through the decision of the young, smart, and genuine country lawyer -- inspired by his father, who comes across as a thoughtful, caring, and noble man, to commit to a life of serving others -- to launch a long-shot campaign to become the Governor of Arkansas. This is not a book for Bumpers to tout his influence on policy in Arkansas, although I discovered later that he was the only Arkansas Governor of the twentieth-century who, among Arkansas political scientists, achieved the rank of "Great." (Other Arkansas governors included David Pryor and, of course, a young man named Bill Clinton.) Nor is it a bogged-down account of Bumpers' years in the Senate, although he was for twenty-four years among the most revered members of that body. Nor is it a rumination on the trends of the times or the national character, even though Dale Bumpers was repeatedly encouraged to run for president and declined in 1976, 1984, and finally for the last time in 1988. Indeed, in an age where politicians discuss their political accomplishments and ambitions at length in their memoirs, with a cloying sense of self-centeredness that encourages one to forswear the genre entirely, Bumpers never discusses the intense-but-always-fleeting power struggles that define Washington, or why he always decided against running for the presidency. Instead, the book is a reflection a long, sometimes-bumpy, but always satisfying public and private life, full of vivid images, memorable episodes, and wonderful stories.
   
   What makes the book so appealing is its utter lack of pretense, Bumpers' genuine and unfailing respect for those who might wander across his book in the local library and spend a few moments with it. It is little wonder he always won re-election in Arkansas, despite the fact that his views tended to be more liberal than those of the state as a whole. ("Do you want to know why you always thought I was more liberal than I said I was?" he recounts asking an assembled group back home in Arkansas, as he was finishing up his last term in the U.S. Senate. "Because I was!") In an age of insta-political memoirs, Bumpers mentioned that it took him nearly four years to write the book, and it shows.
   
   Given our disenchantment with politics these days, we are constantly looking for a man on a white horse to save our political culture from itself. One wonders, however, what our potential would be if we moved past the cult of political celebrity, and searched for a leader who was confident but genuine, talented and humble, and most of all, good and decent, with an integrity and a generosity of spirit that reminds us of the best about ourselves. In an age where we are all looking for the next John F. Kennedy or Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton (Mitt Romney? John Edwards? Barack Obama?), you may, after reading this memoir, wonder whether we may better be served by searching for the next Dale Bumpers.



2. Senator Bumpers' memoir is truly a great read. The Senator is very candid about politics, honest about his life, and philosophical without trying to justify his actions while in office. In a day where it seems every politician running for office feels the need to write a book, Senator Bumpers has taken the time to write one after leaving public office.
   On a personal note, the Senator took time out of his day to autograph a copy for me on the occasion of my retirement from the Army.
   This is a very good book.



3. Dale Bumpers might be seen as a mixture of one part Atticus Finch (To Kill a Mockingbird), one part Jefferson Smith (Mr. Smith Goes to Washington), and a half part Abe Lincoln (at least he got the self-deprecating part).
   
   In his memoir, Bumpers presents his life in wry strokes from Depression-era Arkansas through the Clinton impeachment trial. When focused upon the Arkansas of his youth, Bumpers' writing rings with spry anecdotes and the merriment of a man who can laugh at what was once a scandal and present rural life with a fine eye.
   
   Unfortunately, the broad brush strokes of his gubernatorial and senate career reeks of sterilized gaps (or perhaps, hatchets slyly buried). Bumpers becomes jaded, cynical, and cautious in writing about Washington powerbrokers, condensing his memoirs into a string of dinner parties and public engagements lacking the same confessional quality. After multiple terms in the Senate, Bumpers recalls only two meaningful debates - Panama Canal, and the battle to save the Manassas Battlefield from becoming a shopping center.
   
   Bumpers' memoir is worth reading for the depiction of the rural South and a profile of a real-life career of a grassroots lawyer who did good and made good in the first half. However, concluding with Bumpers speech on behalf of fellow Arkansan Bill Clinton during the impeachment trial is anticlimactic, and the latter section begs for the same treatment as his earlier, less public life.



4. Great read by someone who knows how to paint pictures with words. Dale Bumpers is a true public servant, not a politician out for fame, ego, money, and sex. I first became aware of him in a lengthy newspaper article some decades ago that gave deep background coverage to his spoken eloquence and mastery of issues, beyond that even of most Senators. I have wanted him to run for President ever since, and I think his speech in defense of Bill Clinton shows what a loss we have endured in not having Dale Bumpers as a President, particularly in light of the actions of our current President.
   
   The Senator describes in his book how Arkansas was always competing with Mississippi in being at the bottom of the lists of good things, and at the top of lists of bad things, and how he strove to change that. I was born and raised in Louisiana, and remember experiencing the same thing with Mississippi, but don't remember seeing Arkansas on those lists frequently. I consider that to be a testament to the Senator's success in changing things in Arkansas, as he was born about 1926, and I was born in 1963.
   
   Lets hope a generation of Americans finds this work as inspiring as the author found the words of Harry Truman to him: "You should always remember that the people elected you to do what you think is right. They're busy with their own lives, and they're depending on you.... Get the best advice you can find on both sides of the issues, pick out the one that makes the most sense to you, and go with it.... Secondly, trust people with the truth. Politicians always have a hard time telling people the truth, rather than telling them what they think they'd like to hear. People can handle the truth, and you can trust `em with it." (p. 226).



5. This is an exceptionally excellent book, replete with snatches of humor and wise and poignant thoughts. It is indeed a memoir rather than an autobiography, and does not dwell much on the author's illustrious career as governor and senator. The best chapters are toward the end, when he tells of his crowning achievemnet after he left the Senate and gave his superlative speech in the trial in the Senate of Bill Clinton. I am glad he set that speech out in an appendix since I had forgotten just how able it was. This book is a great book, and one can recomment it unreservedly.

1 comments about Public Lives, Private Secrets: Gender, Honor, Sexuality, and Illegitimacy in Colonial Spanish America.

1. By taking sources from colonial archives, and explaining them in a clear, concise manner, Twinam's Public Lives, Private Secrets is an excellent book for students trying to understand the day to day lives of Colonial Latin Americans. Twinam is a great historiographer