1 comments about The Lenin Anthology.

1. Tucker's edited volume, "The Lenin Anthology," is a good compilation of Lenin's body of work. If one wishes a quick introduction to Lenin in one volume, this is a good work to look at.
   
   First, Lenin's real name was Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov. The death of his older brother at the hands of the government was a key point in his life (note the brief chronology on pages xv-xxiii, from his birth in 1870 to his death in 1924). Tucker's introductory essay is useful for placing Lenin's work in context. He observes that (page xxvi): "Lenin must be understood both as a creator of a distinctive version of Marxism as a revolutionary theory and also as a person steeped in the native Russian, non-Marxist revolutionary tradition."
   
   The volume's Part I focuses on "The Revolutionary Party and Its Tactics." The single most important contribution is probably "What Is to Be Done? Burning Questions of Our Movement." This work outlines his view of the tactics of revolution under the banner of the party. Other selections are also useful to understand his tactical perspective (e.g., "One Step Forward, Two Steps Back").
   
   Part II examines "Revolutionary Politics in a World at War." One of the best known of his works in this section is "Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism," in which work he equated capitalist countries with carrying out imperialist policies. Part II considers "The Revolutionary Taking of Power." In my view, doubtless the single most important work appearing in this section is Lenin's "The State and Revolution." This work focuses more on revolution, how to achieve it, what it means, and what of the aftermath than almost any substantial work that he wrote. This is far more a kind of philosophical work than his more tactical pieces from Part I. And so on.
   
   Other key works appearing in whole or in part: "The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky," "'Left-Wing' Communism--An Infantile Disorder," etc. At the end, there are some poignant letters and brief essays. Poignant among some of these: His frustration with bureaucracy holding back what he saw as the goals of revolution after the Bolsheviks had seized power; his fears regarding succession, as he lugubriously diagnosed that Stalin was not the person to succeed him (e.g., see page 728)--and his powerlessness to prevent what he feared; his essay "Better Fewer, But Better," in which he excoriated Stalin indirectly and argued for less obtrusive government and moving ahead more slowly and carefully. In the last named essay, he defined the title as (page 736): "We must follow the rule: Better fewer, but better. We must follow the rule: Better get good human material in two or even three years rather than work in haste without hope of getting any at all."
   
   Lenin was a master of political invective, attacked his enemies mercilessly (even if just in his writing). He was a professional revolutionary who also was, on occasion, capable of interesting political reflections. If one wishes to know more about the works of and ideas of V. I. Lenin, this is one of the very best starting points.

2 comments about Persona Non Grata: A Memoir of Disenchantment with the Cuban Revolution (Nation Books).

1. Although a denunciation of Castro's dictatorship in Cuba, during the author's 4 months as a Chilean diplomat in havana in 1970, he reveals the haughtiness and lack of compassion towards people not as 'intellectual' as him.
   
   The book must me considered a well-intentioned exercise of narcissism. Verbosity, conceit, and arrogant outpouring of self-adulatory writing. I couldn't stand it and put the book away almost half-way through. If only the reader didn't have to fish the interesting bits of information from this sea of conceit...
   
   The obscene thing about it is the nonchalant tone, the care-free attitude of intellectual superiority with which he carries on in the island while thousands of poor Cubans he ignores were starving, sentenced to hard-labor, executed by firing-squads or tortured in nazi-like concentration camps. All this while he was being regaled lavishly by the the nomenklatura.
   
   Thanks for your help, anyway, mister Edwards. I couldn't finish your book but I guess it moved a few strings up there, in the abode where the elistist class of self-called intellectuals and diplomats hang around.
   
   I, nevertheless, will hang out with real men like Valladares ('Against All Hope') and Jorge Masetti ('In the Pirate's Den').



2. This is a fascinating book.
   
   First, it's a long, honest (brutally honest) look at the Cuban state by a "bourgeois liberal intellectual" (I'm using "liberal" in the English sense - with connotations of free speech, free trade, and social justice - perhaps "reform liberalism" is a better term in the USA?); a point of view pretty close to my own (and, I would guess, many westerners these days who consider themselves synpathetic to "the left"). So the author is sympathetic to the revolutionary ideals, but can also see, quite clearly, what Castro cannot.
   
   Second, it explores the tension that arises when an attempt to achieve those ideals is opposed - the spiral of control and resistance, secret police and "traitors". It's pretty common to forgive Cuba because "they've had to withstand so much" (particularly the American embargo); this book makes a good case that by the early 1970s Castro had already overdrawn this moral account.
   
   Third, it indirectly sheds light on Chile's own democratic revolution, under Allende. To what extent Allende failed through being too open, and whether any other approach would have been worthwhile, is a constant subtext.
   
   Finally, it was interesting to see how diplomacy "works" at a basic day-to-day level.
   
   [I should add I read the Chilean/Spanish 2006 edition - it has a few extra details (mainly footnotes) added, apparently, but nothing very significant.]

2 comments about The Kevin Woods Story: In the Shadows of Mugabe's Gallows.

1. If one has a story that only they can tell, they have the right and liberty to tell it the way they want and the audience can only listen or (in this case) read and take it as it is. The problem comes if the audience knows something about the story and, even more importantly, they have a different understanding or interpretation of events described in the story. This is my dilemma.
   
   I have never met Woods but I know aspects of his story. In short, Woods tells the story of how he became a policeman in then racist Rhodesia in the early 1970s, operated during the liberation war and was among the many white civil servants retained by the black majority government of Robert Mugabe. He was later to become a double spy for both the Zimbabwe government and the South African apartheid regime culminating in his participation in a bombing of an ANC safe house in Bulawayo (Zimbabwe's western city) where an innocent man was killed.
   
   Woods tells of his arrest, trial and imprisonment for almost 20 years (five of them on death row) and his sudden release and deportation to South Africa.
   
   If you just love stories of espionage, murder, justice (or lack of it) and political power play, no matter who is telling and how they are doing it, you will enjoy this book. More so, if you do not know much about Zimbabwe.
   
   However, if you are like me, a Zimbabwean who knows Kevin's story both from the perspective of a native of the country and from the perspective of being a journalist who covered aspects of his story and knows some of the people he is talking about; then you might have problems accepting some of his impositions.
   
   For example, Woods describes black liberation war fighters in both Zimbabwe and South Africa as inept "gooks" whom Ian Smith's Rhodesian army and P.W. Botha's South Africa were on the verge of routing before Britain sold out and gave Zimbabwe to Mugabe. I grew up in the war he describes and my recollection of war events and, especially its conclusion, are what the world accepts as truth - that what he calls "gooks" were disciplined soldiers who liberated Zimbabwe and eventually South Africa.
   
   Woods' story is also less realistic (if not dishonesty) about Zimbabwean blacks in general, an attitude I can only attribute to bias.
   
   Also, despite his admittance to participating in treasonous behaviour that led to death of other people, Woods wants to be accepted as a victim of a vindictive black president, something I find hard to reconcile.
   
   Finally, Woods was not satisfied with telling his own story; he attempted to analyze Zimbabwe's current economic and political problems. But his effort failed dismally because, not only is he not an expert in those issues, but he was in jail when events he tries to pass judgement on were happening.
   
   As you read this review, you might then wonder why you should waste your money and time buying and reading this book. It is not a waste. Apart from getting to know the story of Zimbabwe's best known "political prisoner", the book gives you an idea into the disconnect between white and black Zimbabweans, especially during the post independence years. It also gives you a glimpse into the roots of Zimbabwe's current problems.



2. This account by Kevin Woods of his nearly 20 years as a political prisoner in Zimbabwe is one of the most poignant, honest, and stirring stories I've ever read. One does not have to know much about Zimbabwe, or the reasons behind Woods' double agent status, to gain immense inspiration from reading how this man managed to survive the overwhelming feelings of hopelessness and despair during his long incarceration and isolation from the world. That one important element, alone, of his story makes it worth the read! Kevin Woods is a wordsmith and has a unique ability to convey to the reader the range of emotions he experienced during those horrific years, interspersed with his very astute observations about his surroundings.
   
   For those who want to fill in the blanks regarding the genocide in Matabeleland (in western Zimbabwe) in the early years of Mugabe's ongoing reign of terror, Kevin Woods provides real insight into that massacre. As an agent for South Africa during the 1980's, while simultaneously serving as a high-ranking agent in Mugabe's Central Intelligence Organization, Kevin was in a unique position to see two sides of the conflict up close and personal, all of which makes for some fascinating, yet sobering, reading.
   
   There are also personal photos, newspaper accounts and documents, and a nice sampling of the author's beautiful color drawings that he sent as gifts in his letters to those around the world who corresponded with him during his imprisonment. Some sketches by renown artist Craig Bone are an added bonus in this book ... and there is so much more. I highly recommend the book!

5 comments about No Such Thing as a Bad Day.

1. I enjoyed this book because I am a cancer survivor. Mr. Jordan also
   discussed and gave an inside look into political events that happened
   events over 2 decades ago, which I found to be interesting.



2. I read this book years ago and never forgot this brave uplifting man as he fought his battle with cancer. I am greatly saddened to hear of his passing today. His words will live on for anyone facing life's greatest challenges.



3. I have several relatives with cancer,including my son who is a childhood leukemia surviver. I bought this book expecting to learn more about dealing with the diagnosis of the "Big C". I got that and much, much more.

   This book is an inspiration for those touched by cancer, but also an inspiration to see how seemingly small decisions or details in life can a have huge impact. It also is an insider's view of what life in the Deep South was like in the mid-19th century.

   Whether you read this book to better understand how to deal with cancer, how to face difficult circumstances in general, or how how a single person can make a huge difference in the lives of others, or just an interesting read you will not be disappointed.




4. Hamilton Jordan tells of his inspiring victory over the deadly disease that affects us all in one way or another - cancer. He also tells the intriguing and compelling history of his brief tenure in the White House under Jimmy Carter as well as the inspiring story of his uncle, who fought racism in rural Georgia ahead of his time.

   But above all, this book provided me with a shot in the arm while I was in the hospital for over a month with pneumonia. Feeling somewhat down, this book really lifted my spirits.
   Jordan proves that a positive outlook and one deeply rooted in prayer and faith in God immensely helps those in dire medical circumstances. I am a walking monument and a true believer of the power of prayer and faith in God.

   I highly recommend this book to everyone - whether you're sick or not. It is ineffably a book that leaves you with a warm fuzzy feeling after you put it down. A great gift to someone you love - including yourself.




5. Not many books kept me up past my bedtime but this ranks as one of them. Jordan is frank, lucid and at times funny but I would prefer if he elaborates on his tenure as chief of staff further. I'm sure the conversation he had with Carter in his old car campaining for this little known person then would interest a lot of people...well he left that part out.
   This book is about hope and doing something about it.

5 comments about Enemy Combatant: My Imprisonment at Guantanamo, Bagram, and Kandahar.

1. Very interesting with alot of good info, however, Moazzam comes off a little self-righteous and arrogant. Ok he MAY have been wrongfully imprisoned, but his persistent pushing of his horrible poetry really puts me off.



2. The author, either a pious bookseller and humanitarian or a supporter of al-Qaida, depending on who you ask, was abducted from his house in Islamabad and spent three years in the titular prisons. Begg is, by other accounts, a reasonable and charming man, and was a model prisoner who got along with several of his guards. His personality shows through in his prose, which is readable, clear, and impassioned without veering into needless vitriol (though he does not bother to hide his disdain for American culture and political ignorance). There are two ways to read the book: the unrepentant apologia of a liar who got caught funding terrorism, or the clarion call of an innocent man nearly destroyed by an unjust and unthinking system. Personally, I think there's a bit of truth to both. Begg leaves out an earlier arrest in his memoir, and even at times condemns himself from his own mouth. It isn't just a post 9/11 America that suspected him; he was investigated by MI5 as early as 1998. He also defends the Taliban, claims that he was allowed to build a girls' school under them, hints that 9/11 was known ahead of time by US authorities who let it happen, and thinks that Afghanistan was attacked because it was a "purist Islamic state" (which is ludicrous). But at the same time, the outrage of this book is that even if Begg was as bad as Bush and company said, he should have gotten a trial. The charges against him should have been made public and plain. He and all the others should have been treated with a modicum of humanity (which is not the same as respect or complacency). And certainly, US and British intelligence should have conducted interrogations with intelligence and coordination, not the repetitive, unhelpful sessions by any number of alphabet agencies vying with each other instead of sharing information. At the very least, Begg's memoir shows that the aftermath of the War on Terror is as badly handled in the prisons as it is in the White House.



3. leaving aside his guilt or innocence and the question of whether his treatment was fair or inhuman......what you won't find here is a political rant, mystical "epiphanies",philosophical speculation or reflections on Islam (except for talk among prisoners as to whether their religion permits attacks such as that of 9/11).instead we are given a calm, clear-eyed, step-by-step account of his time spent in custody. there are descriptions of the various guards, interrogators, and their rules and, finally, when he is released from solitary confinement, his fellow "detainees". he relishes reading so it is surprising that his poetry is the worst doggerel i've ever read. however the prose is clear and precise and he even includes the times when he lost his composure.



4. I am only half way through this book, but I can't resit writing a preliminary review after seeing the other reviews offered here.
   
   This book is not well written. It is endlessly repetitive and the timeline of events is often vague or ambiguous. You have to wade through dozens of reconstructions of Begg's conversations with guards, most of which attempt to show how easy it was to be one up on the American servicemen that he regarded as his social inferiors. He comes across as a self promoting prig and a pansy. This seems to be the pattern for the leading jihadis, they come from relatively privileged backgrounds. They are disaffected young men from comfortable backgrounds using terrorism as a way to work out their own internal conflicts. In Begg's case he has clearly been influenced greatly by the feeling that he was never fully accepted in the UK.
   
   I was a POW in Hanoi for six years. I can understand Begg's emotional response to his imprisonment. He has gone through the same emotional roller coaster that afflicts all prisoners, but that experience is universal and not the fault of the US or anyone else.
   
   I do believe that the Administration erred seriously in not giving all these detainees POW status. One result of doing so would be that there would be no discussion of habeus corpus or detention without trial or guilt. POWs are guilty of nothing but are detained until exchanged by agreement with the enemy or the conclusion of hostilities. They have no right to expect anything else. Almost all of the mistreatment that has befallen the detainees has been generated by confusion at all levels as to what the standards of treatment should have been. The confusion came from the top and worked down through all levels. The bad decisions were urged upon the Administration by a bunch of attorneys who, to be blunt, had no idea what they were talking about. They were way out of their league. Their prime motivation was merely to provide legal rationale for what the Administration was determined to do anyway. Advice from senior experienced military leaders was disregarded by civilian leaders. This is especially galling as many of those civilians evaded service during Vietnam while the senior military leaders all earned their hard won experience in Vietnam.
   
   The US fell into the same trap the Vietnamese did by denying a hated enemy the protection of the Geneva conventions. But there are important differences. Those detained by the US got enough to eat. To bad that Begg didn't care for the food- he got enough to eat. Reports are that most Gitmo detainees have put on a lot of weight. We who were POWs in Vietnam did not have that problem. The diet was semi starvation until the last months of the war. No, it wasn't because the guards didn't have anything better. They were well fed.
   
   Begg wrote and received mail. I didn't write or receive mail for almost four years, and then it was only a small six line form several times a year. The Vietnamese did not list me and most others as captured until late in the war. Like most, I was "missing presumed captured" and my family had no idea if I was alive or dead.
   
   Begg had paper to write with and books to read. We had none of that until the last month of the war. Six years with no way to make any use of your time except what was inside your head.
   
   Begg did not get as much opportunity to exercise as he wanted. Compare that to never.
   
   Begg was closely monitored and got adequate medical attention. We had none of that. Those injured prior to or during capture were lucky to live. If they lived they were to suffer for years with bones that knit together at crazy angles because they were never set. Wounds often drained and festered for years because the dressings were never changed and antibiotics were never used consistantly. Many died of their wounds. Ask John McCain. He was left to die until the Vietnamese realized he was the son of an Admiral and might be of some use. Even so the treatment given was so clumsy that he still has a gimp arm and other less visible injuries. About 137 Americans that we are pretty sure were captured never returned and no explanation has ever come from Vietnam. They either died of wounds not treated or were tortured to death or were executed. That's a pretty substantial number when you realize that the there were less than 600 American POWs. True, some detainees have died in our custody, and there may be culpability in those cases, but we are talking about a hand full out of thousands of detainees, most of whom were released and never sent to Gitmo.
   
   I haven't come across anything yet in Begg's book that sounds like torture. Torture was universal for us and there wasn't any doubt that it was torture. What happened met every conceivable definition, even the cockeyed one used by the Administration. Some died during torture. I almost did. I am alive only by a lucky accident I don't choose to explain here.
   
   Begg's places of detention were regularly visited by the ICRC. That never happened in Vietnam.
   
   I could go on, but when Begg finds so much time to complain about the fact that some of the guards were unfriendly or even insulting, he doesn't have much to complain about. Imprisonment is not pleasant and military discipline isn't either. Begg did not seem to have any background to prepare him for either- lucky him. Bottom line to me is that his experience was a cake walk except for the fact that he was detained.
   
   Of course, the real issue is whether he should have been detained at all. The answer to that is maybe yes, maybe no. He is certainly not going to admit in his book that he was working with Al Quaida. And guess what- he was released long before the war ended. Maybe he was totally blameless, maybe he was just no longer a threat. His release may have been conditioned on a pledge of good behavior and no further participation in efforts against the US. If he had had POW status, that would be called parole, which has a long history in international law. If a POW and not paroled, he would still be detained and would have no access to any court. Keep in mind that the status of "enemy combatant" is someone who has less protection from the Geneva Conventions than a POW. The reason for that is that the detainee has been captured in the field engaging hostilities without being a part of any recognized armed force. Then consider that a POW will be detained until the end of hostilities without accusation or trial of any kind. If "enemy combatants" have less protection than POWs, how is it that they should have access to our legal system? The Administration's use of the "enemy combatant" status has been an error that helps no one. It has caused a lot of confusion even among legal scholars who should know better. Had they been kept as POWs, they could be kept until the end of hostilities with out trial, accusation or access to any court. If the US had any reason to believe any of them were guilty of crimes against the laws of war, they could still be tried for those acts. POW status does not protect anyone from criminal prosecution.
   
   I'm not happy with the way we've handled our captives in this conflict, but I challenge anyone to name any enemy we have ever faced who has done as well as the imperfect performance we have delivered this time.



5. Moazzam Begg has written a memoir about an experience during three years as a "detainee" that reminds one of Franz Kafka's fiction, but he claims that these things really happened and he writes with such clarity, conviction, and telling detail that I, for one, am convinced. Whether or not he was "guilty" is a mute point because although he was accused of many things - some quite fantastic and improbable - and even "confessed" under duress, he was never charged or tried for any crime. After three years of harsh treatment and over three hundred interrogation sessions, he was merely told he was free to go with no apology, thanks or recompense.
   Although I consider myself well educated, I know little about the language, culture, history, and religion of Muslims; I have few acquaintances and no friends from that world. In this respect, I believe I am typical of most other native born senior citizen of the United States. I am indebted to Begg for lifting this veil of ignorance for me; he is an excellent ambassador. Interspersed in this narrative about what Hannah Arendt called the "banality of evil" are asides and incidents revealing information and insights valuable to my understanding. If he is an example of Islam in practice, I want to know more about it. In the midst of his ordeal he was able to reach out to many of his guards and interrogators and establish a human bond. I was reminded of Pogo's memorable statement: "we have met the enemy and he is us." If you are old enough to remember that line, you may also remember the bad old days of McCarthyism and anti-communist hysteria and have a sense of déjà vu. You might do well to pay close attention to this book as a primmer on how to survive the kind of ordeal that Begg suffered through. In the current political environment of anti-terrorist hysteria, if you give aid, comfort, or support to Begg or people like him you could well be labeled "Enemy Combatent" and suffer the same fate or worse.

3 comments about The President's House: A History.

1. It has been a while since I read it, so this will be short, but I can tell you that I loved this work. In fact, I read it twice.
   
   Seale takes you through the origins and changes in the house and the property, which is interesting enough to me. But he also takes you, with great detail, through the families and events that occupied and occurred in the President's House. You get a real sense of what life was like there, and how history was made. It is a very interesting story both from a historical house perspective, and a human perspective. I only wish I had bought the leather bound edition.



2. Often, history is written in broad sweep narratives that can be static and boring to the reader. Although William Seale wrote more than 1,000 pages on the history of the White House, you can be assured that there is nothing static or boring about these volumes. He displays an understanding of the fact that history is about the human drama of real people facing real predicaments, and it's poignance is found in how they react to those predicaments.

   Whereas a history book will tell you that the British burned the White House in 1814, Seale tells us what was happening on the DAY the British marched into town. The hundred sentry guards who were supposed to defend the White House were gone, and they could easily have taken on the battalion of 150 British soldiers who marched in the mud down Pennsylvania Avenue, walked around the White House like tourists, ate Dolley Madison's dinner, and then torched the White House with precision. Then there is the even more dramatic moment when Lincoln looked out across the Potomac into Virginia to see the flags of the Confederacy flying, knowing that soon the capital would be surrounded if Maryland seceded from the Union.

   The book is a perfect match of comedy and drama with stories ranging from the infestation of rats in the basement to a presidential love story that rivals "The American President," and in places describes a house that you would never imagine to be destined as the symbol of the most powerful nation on earth.




3. William Seale has put together an excellent historical perspective of the history of the White House, including it's construction, reconstruction, and many renovations. The book also recounts the evolution of Washington, D.C. relative to it's relationship with the White House and it's occupants.

   Along with describing the physical structure and it's many evolutions, Seale has managed to include a significant amount of history relative to the occupants of the White House, including their personal and political lives. This provides the reader with a good feel for life in the White House. Additionally, most will learn a significant amount about presidents who we simply know by name but not much else.

   Overall, I would highly recommend this book to those most interested in american history. Although it includes two volumes, the book is such an interesting read that it is hard to put it down.

4 comments about Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media.

1. This book is much more than a simple transcript of the documentary of the same name, it also offers a lot of information and excerpts from interviews with and writings by Noam Chomsky not included in the film. It is a very wonderfully put together book. This might be the best introduction to Chomsky's thought around. and the philosopher all star trading cards in the back of the book are a great idea. Plus, it really looks good on the coffee table.



2. "While the film has met with large-scale success throughout much of the world, it is as a book that Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media is most useful. A virtual transcript of the film, it also includes a range of other materials--extended extracts from Chomsky's writings, reviews of those writings, interviews and a variety of novelty items, from comic strips through to a set of "Philosopher all-Star" trading cards attached to the spine. Through these, the emphasis on Chomsky's personality with marks the film (and about which Chomsky himself was concerned) is diminished, and the result is a highly skimmable guide to Chomsky's political ideas, the controversies in which he has been embroiled, and the notoriously thorny question of the relationship between his political and linguistic ideas. It is, perhaps, too fragmentary and montage-like in its organization to serve as a course text, but as a distillation of one important current within Western radical thought it is extremely useful."

   Will Straw,
   Canadian Journal of Communication




3. This documentary is a reasonable exposition of Chomsky's views. For those unfamiliar with Chomsky's (and Edward Herman's) propaganda model, this film is highly recommended. Those already conversant with Chomsky will probably revel in the extension of his ideas to real Living Color (those who agree with him anyway). However, I have one complaint: the propaganda system is complicated, and the film seems to take a dive on the specifics instead of dealing with its essential details. The failure to explicate what exactly Chomsky means when he speaks of "thought control in a democratic society" allows the pejorative claim that his ideas are "conspiratorial" to seep into the argument. Tom Wolfe scoffingly impugns what he calls, "the cabal"- I doubt he's actually read Chomsky. Anyone who understands the propaganda model, even if they fervently deny its existence, realizes that it is not worthy of "conspiracy theory" derision. The film would have done well to debunk this myth.

   The other flaw as I see is the focus on Chomsky's background and personal life, which are superfluous to the film's main message and inconsistent with Chomsky's own feelings about celebrity.

   As you can imagine, the film is rather one-sided in favor of Chomsky's views. Once you've seen this, it's absolutely imperative to read "Necessary Illusions", "Manufacturing Consent", and even some of Chomsky's other books- "The Washington Connection" and "Rouge States" are recommended. Also of note is that Chomsky may be Godfather of media criticism, but others including Nancy Snow and Michael Parenti have written well on the subject.




4. Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media is the essential companion book to the celebrated philosophical documentary film of the same name which was released in 1993.

   Noam Chomsky followers and all free thinkers who have seen the film (and those who have not) owe it to themselves to get a copy of this provocative book and discover the incredible depth and lucidity of Chomsky's thought and ideas which address the most important moral, ethical, political and social issues of our time.

   The book contains a complete transcript of the film, with 300 stills illustrating the text, as well as copious excerpts from Chomsky's writings, interviews and other sources. The side-bar rich format of the book is well designed in that it allows one to follow the sometimes fast pace of the documentary's narrative while providing well chosen excerpts from Chomsky's writings that enrich and elucidate the topics presented in the film.

   Like the film, this book will hold your attention, and you will find yourself returning again and again to explore the political life and times of the controversial author, linguist, and radical philosopher Noam Chomsky. I would highly recommend this book both to the seasoned reader of Chomsky's work and as a very approachable introduction for the first time reader to this authors intellectually potent thought.

5 comments about Very Strange Bedfellows: The Short and Unhappy Marriage of Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew.

1. Jules Witcover is an excellent writer who, unfortunately, sometimes lets his political and philosphical beliefs get in the way. There are various instances in this book where he is just as intent on criticizing conservatives and the Republican Party as criticizing the two main characters -- Nixon and Agnew.
   
   It is obvious that he is and was no fan of President Nixon. In some respect, despite his dislike for Agnew there are places in the book where it seemed Witcover was sympathetic with him. One senses that Agnew, for all his flaws, wanted to be an important member of the Nixon Administration while Nixon and his staff grew to dislike him and tried to relegate him to obscurity. It is no secret that Nixon became enamored with John Connally and would have preferred Connally as his successor. Witcover sees a tormented vice president who wanted to be so much more than what the president would let him be. And then, skeletons came out of the closet to doom the vice president.
   
   Two things stood out that keeps me from rating this higher. First, if Witcover would have left his biases out of the book -- or been more subtle with his biases -- it would have given his account more credibility. As it is, his little digs at not just Nixon and Agnew but the Republican Party and conservatives in general, gives this book more of a flavor of a hatchet job.
   
   Second, and this may seem trivial, but there are no pictures. Other than the cover jacket there are none. Pictures really add a lot to a historical book such as this. I grew up in that era and remember well how the main characters -- Nixon, Agnew, Connally, Haldeman, Erlichman, etc -- looked. But to younger people, the failure to match a face with the people being written about detracts from the book. There could have been pictures of Nixon in the 1968 campaign, the 1968 GOP convention, Nixon and Agnew campaigning in both 1968 and 1972, Agnew giving speeches during the first administration, the investigators and culprits who destroyed Agnew in 1973, Agnew leaving the federal court in Baltimore as a former vice president, both men in their later years, etc. There were so many possibilities of where pictures would have added so much to this book. But there were none.



2. Recently I read an article by Ben Stein about the sudden outpouring of books about Richard Nixon and his presidency. For the most part Stein focuses on Robert Dallek's excellent tome "Nixon and Kissinger" as well as Margaret MacMillan's somewhat tedious but thorough work, "Nixon and Mao." He referenced this book in passing and referred to Mr. Witcover as, "a third rate journalist." I beg to differ.
   
   In examining the relationship between President Richard Nixon and Vice President Spiro Agnew, Witcover carefully examines one of the most overlooked aspects of his presidency. Witcover clearly draws on research he had done for previous books about Nixon and Agnew, but manages to distinguish this book from other Nixon books.
   
   In the grand scheme of the Nixon presidency, Spiro Agnew is typically an afterthought as the focus usually falls on Watergate, Kissinger, the Vietnam War, the SALT agreement and opening relations with communist China. The book quickly makes clear that Agnew played a minor role, if any, in policy decisions. Witcover is at his best when he explores issues such as Nixon's own self-loathing and paranoia, which clearly fed into his decision to put Agnew on the '68 ticket. Mr. Whitcover also paints an interesting picture of Agnew's ability to offend an entire room in less than three sentences. And while he may have been far more elegant than George W. Bush in his ability to articiulate his ideas, it is also clear nearly ALL of his memorable soundbites (such as his reference to the press as "nattering nabobs of negativism")to William Safire and Pat Buchanan. Witcover's analysis and research makes also makes plain the irony of Nixon's treatment of Agnew, considering Nixon's own gripes about his limited role as Ike's VP.
   
   But perhaps the most interesting and unique aspect of this book is the backstory of Nixon's relationship with John Connelly, and his desire to unite with Connelly (then still a Democrat) and start a third party that would shake up American politics as we know it. Nixon's desire to push Agnew off the 72 ticket and replace him with Connelly is well examined and documented by Mr. Witcover, who paints Connelly as one of the few people in Washington that Nixon was in awe of.
   
   We all know how it ended, with Agnew's resignation, Ford's ascension to the VP-slot, and Nixon's own downfall. But if you are interested in a fresh take on an often forgotten chapter of the Nixon presidency, you can't do much better than this book.



3. It seems that Mr. Whitcover has covered this before in two previous books. As a previous reviewer said, this is a hatchet job on two of the most misunderstood people to hold the two highest offices in the United States. Yes, they both certainly had their faults and deserved their eventual fates, but there was a lot more to the both of them and Whitcover misses it all. He just simply re hashes the obvious faults and does no other searching. Agnew for one is in dire need of a serious study of his Vice Presidency.



4. Witcover has made a career of hate filled attacks on RN. This book is a cut and paste job with little new to offer.



5. As I began to read Jules Witcover's revealing book about the Nixon-Agnew relationship, I thought that this book must have limited appeal....especially to those of us who grew up during that time. Indeed, the author alludes to this point in his preface, but then again, "Very Strange Bedfellows" has overtones for today. One hopes that Witcover has another book in mind as he has already set foot in one of those intriguing relationships from the past... Nixon and Agnew.
   
   Luck more or less got Agnew off on his trajectory and lack of luck finished him off. I didn't know that Agnew had been a Rockefeller man until I began reading the book, and how quickly things changed. The stars were aligned for Agnew. It's no wonder, however, that the smallness of Agnew eventually got him, as Witcover so describes.
   
   The author is the perfect person to write this book. Having assessed the potential of Nixon and Agnew, his narrative is terrific. I lived through that very period and followed the two closely, but Jules Witcover has written an account that covers it all. It's a walk down memory lane. I highly recommend "Very Strange Bedfellows". It uncovers the the behind-the-scenes look at one of the weirdest political connections.

5 comments about Years of Renewal.

1. kissinger details how the white house was run after nixon resigned and ford came into power--the photographs are excellent and the text is inciteful----kissinger has been accused of some very bad decisions inhis time that caused many innocent lives--this book gives the reader for why he made those decisions



2. Henry Kissinger's book, "Years of Renewal," is a complete review of U.S. foreign policy initiatives while he was Secretary of State under President Gerald R. Ford. In it, he details how they built upon the foreign policy successes of the Nixon Administration and laid the foundation for the resurgence of the American spirit seen during the Reagan Administration. From a diplomatic standpoint, this may have been America's finest hour.

   With the possible exception of Lincoln, no U.S. president has inherited a nation as severely divided as Gerald R. Ford. Immediately after assuming office, he faced one international crisis after another with a hostile, "McGovernite Congress," and an emasculated intelligence gathering system that made effective response to even the most extreme provocations virtually impossible. Kissinger says throughout, Ford made decisions solely on what was best for the nation, not on what was politically expedient. His reward for such selfless service: defeat in the next election.

   Like Kissinger's other works, this book can be read either in individual chapters or be taken as a whole. In each segment he details, what they did, what their options were, the assumptions their actions were based upon, and if unsuccessful, what their fall back plan was to be. In spite of seemingly insurmountable odds, they were able to hold the Atlantic Alliance together, strengthen our ties to the Peoples Republic of China, and keep the Soviets out of both the Middle East and Africa.

   The Chinese war philosopher, Sun Tsu said, "In the moment of victory, button your chin strap." History has proven the Soviets should have listened. Given our national paralysis following Vietnam/Watergate, it seemed they could not be stopped. In the international chess game--that is diplomacy at the highest levels--they were stopped through the efforts of a few, dedicated statesmen who blocked them at every turn. The fall of the Soviet Union and Communism was the ultimate result.

   This book is a textbook on how to conduct foreign policy. Enlightening and informative, it has inspired me to read Kissinger's other works, "White House Years," and "Years of Upheaval." I highly recommend it to any serious student of the era.




3. I have admired Henry Kissinger for many years. I think he is one of those limited intellectual diplomacies who really have, not only limited to one's word, a long term vision. It's really enjoyable when you read his book and share his thoughts.



4. Dr. Kissinger, for all of his hubris and arrogance will truly go down in history as a great statesman. His intimate and sometimes self-deprecating writing style will keep the reader at the edge of their seat especially during the end of the Vietnam War and the crisis with Cyprus. All three volumes could very well serve as textbooks for anyone interested in the finer points of statecraft.



5. The book does not mention the effect that many of his decisions had on the "little" people , the common , insignificant people , the families destroyed in the blaze of war as a result of many of his decisions while playing geopolitical chess games with the Russians and the British and the Chinese. During his reign as secretary of state , antiamerican feeligs soared in Cyprus .A folk song was being played on the radio right after the 1974 war there. It talked about the great powers of the world who treat people's lives as a whim of the moment. It said that the singer wanted to set the "Embassy of Death" on fire.Can you imagine? The American embassy won the nickname Embassy of Death! .It should have been embassy of life . What Mr.Kissinger forgets to mention in his book is that he masterminded a coup d'etat in Cyprus , installed a dictator , and then invited the Turks to invade there and capture half the island because he did not like the elected democratic president.(He thought that being a non-aligned country was like inviting the communists to take control of a crucially strategic island ). The horror of that war was beyond imagination. Mr. Kissinger is still afraid to visit either Greece or Cyprus because the people with missing parents or children might lynch him.There were many demonstrations agaist his person , which surprised and brought him down to reality as to what happenned to real people with every decision he made. Even now as we speak ,25 years after the events , an American forensic team is unearthing and DNA identifying missing persons bodies .Cyprus had more missing persons than the USA had in the Vietnam war. Unfortunately the American people have absolutely no idea how many people died or lost their homes so that the multinational companies would have more oil , more control ,more raw materials, more wealth etc.They see what Hollywood shows them .

5 comments about Let Fury Have the Hour: The Punk Rock Politics of Joe Strummer.

1. I read it and loved it. Why? I like reading about The Clash. I thought that Cowboy made really valid points which I think anyone thinking about buying this book should consider. I managed to overlook the errors in the book to enjoy the rest. The book overall includes an array of views about different aspects of The Clash. If you can get it cheap enough I'd recommend it.



2. Alright, its true, this book is filled with typos and misinformation. But none are so detrimental as to label this book useless to the growing library of Clash/Strummer literature. D'Ambrosio does an excellent job of compiling pertinent essays on the life and inspiring words and ways of Joe Strummer. Yes, some essays are definitely worse than others. Some essays make you want to blast Clash from your stereo, some make you want to go start a non-profit organization, and some just make you wish beyond belief that you could have met the man. Whatever effect the book has on you, I am certain that if you are a Clash/Strummer fan, you will walk away more inspired by and enthralled with the human being that was Joe.



3. The book "Let Fury Have the Hour" is a great book if you are into punk rock music. In the book Joe Strummer tells us all about what punk was all about in that era and how everything worked. Without The Clash punk would probably be just another rage that your parents would tell you about. This book is good for people any age. Joe Strummer tells about every type of music. Joe tells you about punk from the birth of it until the "death".



4. Bottom line? This somewhat haphazard collection of twenty-five or so articles about Joe Strummer is more or less exactly the homage one would expect, with few (if any) surprises. The focus here is to celebrate the passing of a highly influential musician and his legacy as a progressive and hopeful force, while putting him in the context of his times. Most diehard Clash and Strummer fans won't find anything new here, and those unfamiliar with him may find it a bit overwhelming, but taken in small pieces, it's an inspirational tribute to Strummer's spirit. While the book would certainly benefit from from greater thematic organization (not to mention attention to detail), its heart is in the right place, and it's hard to imagine any collection of clippings and essays being any better.
   
   The book is organized into four loose sections proceeded by a very brief piece by Chuck D about The Clash's influence on Public Enemy, along with an introduction by editor D'Ambrosio. The first (and longest) section covers Strummer's career as leadman for The Clash. These are all pieces that originally appeared elsewhere, beginning with D'Ambrosio's lengthy overview which ran in the Monthly Review in 2003 and is available on their web site. There's the 1976 interview from Sniffin' Glue, gushing pieces from Trouser Press (1978), Rolling Stone (1979), Sounds (1979), a 50-page excerpt from Lester Bangs' seminal book Psychotic Reactions and Carburetor Dung, and a much-revised piece by Greil Marcus that has appeared in a number of places. These reprints are all fine, and as a collective, give a reasonable sense of the power and importance of The Clash for those not already in the know.
   
   The second and third sections are divided rather arbitrarily, and are a hodgepodge of essays and interviews mostly about Strummer's post-Clash career. The first of these is a pretty decent overview of his work in film from D'Ambrosio, who interviewed Alex Cox, Jim Jarmusch, and Dick Rude for the piece. This is followed by a nice short 1988 piece from Sounds focusing on Strummer's soundtrack work, especially Walker. The next essay, titled "The Politics of Punk's Permanent Revolution," attempts to posit that the Clash "helped precipitate a permanent revolution." It reads like something from an academic journal, and invokes philosophers from Hegel to Kant to Kouvalakis with a little Marx thrown in. There are a few promising ideas, but it's hard to take the author seriously when he writes that the album London Calling is "a perfectly awful mish mash of musical styles." Freelance writer Amy Phillips contributes an interesting article about the influence of The Clash on women, and D'Ambrosio adds one about The Clash and antiracism.
   
   Section three starts with a rather boring essay by D'Ambrosio which attempts to reframe Strummer as a political folk artist in the vein of Victor Jara or Silvio Rodriquez. It's probably more interesting if you know those artists, but is to be commended for highlighting some of Strummer's more obscure influences. Two good personal interviews from Punk Planet (2000) and Arthur (2003) follow, a brief profile from Metropolis (2001), and a brief piece from Arthur about Strummer's relationship with Jamaican music. None of these are anything breathtaking, but worth checking out if you missed them the first time around. The final piece about the importance and legacy of The Clash isn't particularly strong, and can be read at poppolitics.com.
   
   The final section is dedicated to essays attempting to give hope for the future. In the first D'Ambrosio profiles musician/activist Michael Franti and actor/activist Tim Robbins as two socially-conscious artists in the tradition of Joe Strummer. Alas, if those are the best we have to offer, the future looks bleak. This is followed by tributes from fellow musicians like Not4Prophet, Billy Bragg, and the singer for Radio 4. This latter group I'd not heard of and will definitely be checking out. These last voices, along with D'Ambrosio coda detailing a late collaboration between Strummer and Johnny Cash, act as a welcome call to action, a reminder that as bad as things look, one should never lose hope and stop striving to change the world around you. That,



5. Let Fury Have The Hour is a thoughtful and moving examination of the soul of creative-activist Joe Strummer who, through the medium of punk rock, became for many the "unofficial leader of a people's movement." This book may not appeal to Clash fans looking for newly unearthed trivia. D'Ambrosio has given us instead a well-chosen collection of vivid stories, both old and new, and deeply felt reflections upon the enduring importance of Joe Strummer and the Clash.
   
   I was repeatedly struck by the stories of Strummer's generosity, empathy, and gracious attention. In both his music and his interactions he proved himself a profoundly committed humanist who recognized the need for class struggle and the fight against racism, imperialism and music industry commodification. A radical consciousness imbued his music, and his melding of multicultural genres with punk and pop became a political statement for justice and equality.
   
   Joe Strummer's wish for himself was to be seen as simply "a good soul." He sought, through his music, to break and remake the world a better place. Strummer told D'Ambrosio when they met in April 2002 that the goal all along was to keep things hopeful and remain optimistic. "We must be positive and know that truth is on our side," said Strummer. "Music can turn people on to the beauty of a life still to be lived...we choose to not take any more and not be miserable." Let Fury Have The Hour is a fitting tribute to Strummer in that the book itself carries on that message of idealism and faith.
   
   This volume is artfully structured in four parts that tell the story of Strummer's musical and political legacy, as each essay delves progressively deeper into the major stages of Strummer's life and career--from his early days with the Clash through his final work on Streetcore and his end-of-life meeting with quintessential rock outlaw Johnny Cash. It opens with a broad essay by D'Ambrosio, intended for an audience unfamiliar with the Clash; followed by six exciting essays originally published in the 70s and 80s that offer up-close glimpses of the Clash unleashing its fury. The most thrilling is Lester Bangs' recapture of a performance where a whole lot of kids "supped on lightning" and Strummer "connects with the nerves of the audience like summer thunderbolts...a man trapped and screaming and...it's the cage of life itself and all the anguish to break through which...is rock `n' roll's burning marrow."
   
   The second section explores the period after the breakup of the Clash when Strummer experimented with film-acting and stayed true to his vision of building up a community of rebels. The third section places Strummer in the canon of great political folk musicians. In the last section, "The World is Worth Fighting For", a set of fresh, gorgeous essays by Anthony Roman, Not4Prophet, Billy Bragg, and D'Ambrosio himself demonstrates why Joe Strummer, still making socially conscious music to his last breath, was a hero whose pioneering life and work will continue to manifest itself for generations to come.