5 comments about Cicero: The Life and Times of Rome's Greatest Politician.

1. Even though I already knew the eventual fate of the great Cicero, I was still hoping somehow he would be spared his terribly unjust death. Man, this was history come alive! You really find yourself cheering for Cicero and depising his enemies. You feel the frustration and depression that Cicero himself must have felt at the slipping away of the Roman Republic, and you share his sadness when tragedy stikes. Its a shame that even more of his letters and books didn't survive to our time. If you have even a weak interest in Roman history, you will enjoy this book. Highly recommended.



2. This is a splendid biography of Cicero. The book is exceptionally well-written, its clarity a product of true mastery of a broad range of historical material. I particularly enjoyed the way that Everitt brings historical figures like Julius Caesar to life. The book retains a clear and sometimes critical view of its subject, keeping it from the realm of hagiography. Cicero emerges as a flawed but ultimately and perhaps accidentally principalled man. The highest compliment I can give Everitt's book is that I am now looking forward to reading Cicero's works.



3. Anthony Everitt does an excellent job with this introduction type book of Cicero. Gives a great account of the man as well as the people in his life. Vivid description and good amount of primary analysis.



4. Odds are, you have heard of Cicero. Considered one of Rome's greatest orators, his writings are the main influence on how way we remember the last days of the Roman republic. The story of Cicero's life is the story of end of Republican Rome. All of the major players of the era: Caesar, Marc Antony, Cleopatra, Brutus and Octavian (soon to be Augustus) all make an appearance in his life. In his role as one of the world's first brilliant statesman and backroom player, Cicero was friends and enemies with all of them. From Everitt's book, it seems Cicero was, at times, courageous in his rhetoric and at times, he was cowardly. He always tried to see all the angels and jockeyed for a position that put him in the best place politically while betraying as few of his political convictions as possible. In the end, he wound up on the wrong side of Marc Antony and was killed.
   
   The story in getting from provincial boy to one of the most powerful men in Rome is fascinating. I am no expert on Roman history. I have read no other biography of Cicero. But to my tastes, Everitt's biography of Cicero is excellent for the reader with a casual interest in this time period in Rome. Not only does it give us insight into what a complicated person Cicero was (both arrogant and generous; brilliant in the courtroom and terrified of physical injury) but also perhaps more importantly it is an excellent primer on the death of the Roman republic. The story of Rome's decent into dictatorship, the attempt at recovering republicanism, and then the reassertion of dictatorship is the stuff that western history is made of, and Everitt's book is a good place to get a sense of who did what when and what Cicero had to say about it. Recommended.



5. I enjoyed this book enourmously. It is easy to read and helps readers understand more about Roman politics and history. It probably has many incorrect interpretations but regardless of this it is entertaining. I will definitely try to purchase Elizabeth Rawson's Cicero-A Portrait since one of the other reviewers say it is even better than Everitt's book.

5 comments about I Have a Dream: Writings and Speeches That Changed the World, Special 75th Anniversary Edition (Martin Luther King, Jr., born January 15, 1929).

1. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is one of America's greatest heroes and this is a collection of his wonderful writings and speeches. Often people stop at "I Have a Dream" but this shows the complete evolution of Dr. King. A wonderful read that has been part of my library for the past 10 years -- and I've read it three times and often use it for reference and store it next to the Bible.



2. Dr. Martin Luther King's collection of writings and speeches, "I Have A Dream", brings aspiration to light. The events that surrounded the life and death of this true hero reveals the shameful fact that no matter how great the United States of America is today, it is one country that was nurtured with inhumane machinery: slavery, racism, injustice, Mickey-Mouse freedom, and Mickey-Mouse democracy. I hate to think about it, but it is an honest fact, which we should all come to terms with. Nobody can rewrite history.
   The 256 pages that is "I Have A Dream" was enough to highlight the wickedness and the violence that were deliberately sustained in America, for a full century, after a bloody Civil War ended her tenacity on slavery.
   One question that will always beg for answer is: How on earth did U.S. Presidents who presided over the ruthless color-bar era qualified for those Nobel Peace Prizes that they received? Knowing what life was like in the U.S.A. just a couple of decades ago melts my heart. "I Have A Dream" is a big eye-opener!



3. "I Have a Dream: Writings and Speeches That Changed the World," by Martin Luther King, Jr., is a fine collection of texts by this important figure. The book has been edited by James M. Washington. Coming in at less than 300 pages, this is a concise but meaty book.

   Washington includes King's most important texts: the "Letter from Birmingham Jail"; the "I Have a Dream" speech; his Nobel Prize acceptance speech; "My Trip to the Land of Gandhi"; "A Time to Break Silence," his 1967 speech criticizing the United States war in Vietnam, and more. These writings and speeches cover King's great themes: nonviolent resistance, the African-American civil rights movement, etc.

   Those seeking a more comprehensive collection of Kings' work should seek out "A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr." also edited by James M. Washington. At more than 700 pages, this is a truly monumental collection, and includes much material not found in "I Have a Dream": the 1965 "Playboy" interview, transcripts of television interviews, and more. But for those who want a shorter text that cuts to the heart of King's life and work, "I Have a Dream" is perfect.

   "I Have a Dream" reveals King to be a true Christian prophet, and a man with a global vision. As literature, these texts also show King to be the heir of such American thinkers as Henry David Thoreau and W.E.B. DuBois. Highly recommended.




4. This collection of Dr. King's writings includes all the major speeches -- such as I Have A Dream and I See the Promised Land, as well as important writings such as Letter from A Birmingham Jail. It also has great essays on the lessons Dr. King learned from Ghandi and a wonderful introduction from Mrs. King. This is a great collection to get started learning about Dr. King -- from his own pen. I highly reccomend it.



5. Reading the speeches of Dr. King are inspiring. You get a glimpse into his mind and to genuinely understand the struggle he was up against. I'm not just refering to the Civil Rights movement. you also get insights into the responsibilities and pressure he felt as the leader of this movement. He was a man who changed history. This book offers glimpses into his humanity as well as his motivational and inspirational speeches. A must for anyone interested in American history, the Civil Rights movement or in biographys. It will continue to effect you long after you have put the book down.

5 comments about The Prince of the Marshes: And Other Occupational Hazards of a Year in Iraq.

1. Long before the United States thought of invading Iraq, Bassam Tibi, a Syrian political scientist, wrote that Arabs are not interested in democracy. This was restating the obvious, but not everybody noticed.
   
   And shortly after the invasion was declared a "mission accomplished," a newspaper columnist, Mark Steyn, rented a beat-up Toyota in Jordan and drove around Anbar and many other places in Iraq for a week, unmolested.
   
   What if instead of unarmed Steyn, Anbar had been occupied by several regiments of American (or Italian or even Spanish infantry)?
   
   Rory Stewart spent nearly a year in Iraq, as a "governate director" of the Coalition Provisional Authority. A more honest title would have been "satrap."
   
   He observed a lot, although he does not seem to have learned much. "The Prince of the Marshes" is his story. The title character was not the most important or even the most interesting of the Iraqis that Stewart tried to govern, but a book entitled "the quixotic Muslim cleric" or "the superannuated illiterate sheikh" or even "the addled seminary dropout" might not have sold as well. "The dishonest general" might have served but Stewart admired the dishonest general (David Petraeus) and does not understand where Petraeus failed in his military duty.
   
   The book is well worth reading, and not only for its easy charm. Whatever one thinks of Stewart's capacity to analyze (in my case, not much), his year in the marshes and few days in the Green Zone was rich in incident and adventure.
   
   The insurgency had not started when he arrived, as early as August 2003, and it was just ramping up by the time Paul Bremer handed over "authority" to an imaginary "Iraqi" "government" and Stewart went off to Harvard to reflect (not too deeply) about his experience.
   
   Scare quotes are needed everywhere. There is no Iraq, nor any Iraqi government, never has been. And authority, as even Stewart figured out, was non-existent.
   
   Although Stewart knew only a few words of Arabic, he brought some experience of Islam, and in particular rural Islam, to his job. A Scot raised in Indonesia, he tramped through Afghanistan and wrote a book about it. He writes that he was "very suspicious of theories produced in seminars in Western capitals" as they might be applied to nation-building in rural parts of the Muslim world. Well, fine, that's obvious, but what theory does Stewart think is appropriate? He never says.
   
   This sounds very much as if he was hoping something would turn up, a famous principle of British public policy.
   
   If any Arabs should have been happy to see Americans and/or Britons, it should have been the Marsh Arabs. Their strange way of life -- and many, many of them as individuals -- was exterminated by Saddam or by the Iranians, or by both. To western ways of thinking, Anybody but Saddam and Anybody but the Mullahs ought to have been preferable, and especially if that Anybody was bringing tens of millions of dollars into an area that had no real economy.
   
   Well, Marsh Arabs don't think like westerners. Duh.
   
   They are, among other things, mightily aggrieved about "colonialism" and "imperialism." To hear an Arab moan and curse about colonialism and imperialism leaves me ROTFL, but Stewart took their complaints at
   face value.
   
   As a Briton, though working for a multinational system, he sort of held the title of "political officer," equivalent to a job held by another Briton, a Colonel Leachman, who was shot in the back by an Iraqi patriot in 1920 during a revolt against "colonialism."
   
   Note the date.
   
   The Arabs in Iraq had not shot any Turks in the back -- not in the name of national political sovereignty at any rate -- during 500 years. The amount of "oppression" they had suffered under the English could not have been very great since until 1916 there were no English.
   
   Arab Muslims really do hate us (that is, western infidels) and everything we stand for (including most relevantly here, democracy).
   
   Even if they didn't, that doesn't make Iraq a nation. One of the joys of reading Stewart is his naïve restatement of the obvious. Early on, he decided that the approach of the Coalition Provisional Authority -- trying to deal with and amalgamate various former underdog factions (few of which had any higher ambition than being overdogs for a while) -- was wrong. Stewart thought the CPA should have worked through the sports leagues, the only organizations in the area that cut across all factions.
   
   Do I have to say that if the only thing you have in common is soccer, you don't have the makings of a nation?
   
   Besides, it ought to have been the policy of the United States to support a free and independent Great Kurdistan. Sympathy for, and even occasionally support of, national aspirations of real nations was an American characteristic until the administration of Woodrow Wilson.
   
   It would be worth returning to. Creating a Great Kurdistan would require breaking up Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey - a win-win-win-win situation if ever there was one.
   
   I wouldn't want you to avoid reading "The Prince of the Marshes" just because its author is a fool. There is too much lively incident, too much there between the lines to savor.
   
   Last point: Stewart is an admirer of Petraeus and Odiorno, who were just divisional officers when he saw them in meetings with the civilians of the CPA, for whom he felt deep contempt. (Stewart is not an utter fool.)
   
   Here's the problem with Petraeus. As even Stewart figured out, the foundation of any policy had to be security. It doesn't take a genius to know that security required more infantry. That was the reason for the surge, too little and too late.
   
   President Bush said, publicly, that his theater commanders could tell him if they needed more men. Never mind that there weren't more. It was the duty of Petraeus and his predecessors to tell Bush the obvious: A bigger army was required.
   
   What would have happened after they told him? Only one American politician called for a bigger army, Mitt Romney, and the voters didn't want to hear it. That, however, was not the generals' problem. In a civilian-directed system, they had a professional duty to offer professional advice to the civilian government.



2. item arrived after a long wait but was in great condition. i love this book, WOW.



3. Rory Stewart (British equivalent of a US FSO) went to Iraq as the war was kicking of and supported the CPA in the province of Basra. Rory does a great job of telling his own accounts of how he attempted to support the local government in the area he was responsible for and the difficulties that he had. A book that may have only occurred during a certain timeframe his lessons and experiences are valuable throughout Iraq and in other countries where a government is trying to vie for control.



4. This book is an honest, intelligent insight to the messes in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the efforts by many - albeit should be all - to do bring those countries to stability. Everyone should read this - politicians (or so called politicians); servicemen/women; leaders and thinkers alike. This is my second title read of Rory Stewart and I hope to read more of his works.



5. Rory Stewart, educated at Eton and Balliol College, Oxford, joined the British Foreign Service after a stint in the British Army. At the age of 30, and with at best limited Arabic, he was chosen to govern an Iraqi province - Meysan and then Nasiriyah - during the time of transition when the Coalition Provisional Authority ruled Iraq before handing power over to the elected Iraqi government. This is Stewart's account of his time in office.
   
   Suffice it to say mistakes were made, and though Stewart spares us any tiresome analyses of what he - as a participant hardly impartial - felt should have been done better, it's clear that there was room for improvement, particularly in the lack of understanding of different cultures, and the expectation that a country that had never known democracy would eagerly - or even willingly - adopt it after the deposal of its tyrannt.
   
   Perhaps the most eye-opening detail in the book is when Stewart, chosen for his many travels through Muslim lands, his knowledge of Farsi and Islamic cultures, and more, repeatedly describes seeings Arabs with their "Rosaries." Praying the Rosary is a devotion limited to Catholics and some Anglo-Catholics; what he saw were "Misbaha", the "prayer beads" on which Muslims count the 99 names of Allah as a devotion of their own. Neither Muslims, who deny the divinity of Christ, nor Catholics, whose list of prophets doesn't coincide with the Muslim one, would be too thrilled by this confusion. Compare this to the anecdote about Sir Anthony Eden, who studied Farsi and Persian literature at Oxford, who, when he sat down for negotiations with the Iranian leadership about their intent to nationalize the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, found that his Farsi and knowledge of Persian literature was better than that of at least some of his counterparts, to the point that he reportedly needed to simplify his speech. O tempora! O mores! O imperia!
   
   Those seeking a sardonic and insightful book into Operation Iraqi Freedom and its aftermath need go no further. Iraqis - and the Anglo-American tax-payer - deserved better.

5 comments about A Godly Hero: The Life of William Jennings Bryan.

1. I must say -truthfully- that that is the best political biography I've ever read (and there have been many).
   
   I accidentally happened into discovering William Jennings Bryan. He is a figure who is given only a brief mention in any grade or high school history book, and that is a shame. While reading a biography of William McKinley (Bryan's rival for the presidency during the election of 1896) I found myself wondering, "Who is this man Bryan?" I wanted to know more. How did a man rise to the head of his party and lead three unsuccessful bids for the presidency? He had to have been a considerable figure. Only Grover Cleveland (who won the popular vote in three elections) and later Franklin D. Roosevelt held such a command over their party. Bryan had to have been just as dynamic.
   
   Thankfully, the author, Mr. Kazin, provides his readers with a deep, very well-researched and enjoyable account of Bryan. Turns out that Bryan WAS a considerable figure. Though he might seem very distant and certainly out-of-place when seen in the context of current events and attitudes, William Jennings Bryan was a perfect fit for the times...someone who could -without apology- campaign for the highest office as a common man of deep faith, extolling the romance "of Jefferson and Jesus." One is left to question what it would have been like had Bryan attained the Presidency of the United States.
   
   The events covered in the pages of this book occurred during the late 1800s/early 1900s...right around the time when many students in their history classes begin to daydream with heavy eyes. (The tariff debate of the 1890s for example, can't possibly hold as much interest as say the question of secession leading up to the Civil War during the 1860s). It would take a pretty determined writer, then, to engage his audience into discovering William Jennings Bryan. Michael Kazin proves to be such a writer.
   
   I can't be sure whether it was Mr. Kazin's strong writing, which given the subject matter could have been very plodding and boring in lesser hands, or the subject himself (Bryan deserves to be remembered for the role he played in our nation's history, even if he did fail to acheive the Presidency)...but I enjoyed the hell out of this book. And that is saying something.



2. There isn't much of substance that I can add to the many excellent reviews already posted here. But perhaps I can provide some comments in minimalist fashion that can get this important book into the hands of "a wider audience." I think there is much we 21st century Americans can learn from William Jennings Bryan. I will divide my comments into two sections: the first dealing with the literary value of the book and the second noting things we can learn from Bryan's life.
   
   The Book -
   1. The organization and pacing is excellent. Nine of the twelve chapters are divided into discreet time periods that correspond to the various political episodes of his life, which was largely defined by his participation in the political life of America. The other three chapters - his early years, his career on the Chautauqua public speaking circuit, and the response of his political admirers - work very well, never losing the focus of the book, politics and evangelical Christianity.
   
   2. This is a good read. The level of diction and writing style is just right for a popular audience. Best of all, Kazin does not "get in the way" of his subject, Bryan. Some academics seem to want to display ALL their knowledge, whether it fits into the narrative or not (are you listening, Joseph Ellis?), but Kazin resists the temptation. I am quite certain that Kazin knows a lot more about Bryan and his times, but, thank God, he is keeping it to himself. I read a lot of history and biography and this effort would have to be in my top 10% in terms of its literary value.
   
   William Jennings Bryan -
   1. He is a very important figure for the history of the Democratic Party, but I am not sure why, even after reading this biography. Certainly, he was an important figure in the Democratic Party during an era when they transformed themselves from the conservative laissez-faire era of Grover Cleveland into the liberal activist times of FDR. If you can overlook his racism and support of prohibition (more on that below), almost all of his positions would be cheered by 21st century liberals. Was Bryan responsible for helping the party make this remarkable transition, or was he simply in the "right place at the right time", fortuitously carried along by other leaders or social forces beyond his control? In either case, he is far more important in the making of modern America than historians have heretofore recognized.
   
   2. He is important for evangelicals who want to be engaged in politics(Self-disclosure: I am an evangelical who is vitally interested in American politics). I think he lived an exemplary life, one that other evangelicals could emulate, but what does that look like for me? It seems to me that 19th century evangelicals generally favored an activist government, working for reforms like abolition, temperance, education, care of the mentally ill, etc, yet that seemed to die after Bryan left the scene. The social gospel seemed to suck them into a new paradigm of seeking "salvation" only in this world and ignoring the next. They turned formerly evangelical denominations - Presbyterian, Methodist, American Baptist, Evangelical Lutheran, etc. into sects that seemed to downplay Christ's gospel for the social gospel. Personally, I am disappointed in their religious direction, yet I am also disappointed in the path taken by those who stayed "true" to evangelical principals. They largely abandoned politics until the abortion controversy of the 1970s and since then, have all too often been used by economic conservatives for purely electoral purposes. I think there is a "third way", in which one defends the gospel in spiritual matters, yet also sets an independent course in political matters, all the while using scriptures as the guide to best "love your neighbor."
   
   3. He is important for today's Democrats. He was obviously deeply committed to many issues that 21st century Dems feel are important, yet he came at these concerns from a Christians perspective. Can Dems allow this type of person to have an important place at their "table"? I'm not talking about phony rhetoric. That will not work because it will be obvious that it is not sincere. I am talking about being serious about making people of faith feel welcome in the Democrat Party. For example, could a Pro-Life Democrat ever be allowed by party bosses to run for President? Not in the past, but perhaps in the future. Secularists and secularism has controlled the party for many, many years. I feel it hurts the party very much in "fly-over" land.
   
   4. A word about his racism and silence about the KKK. Indefensible in our day, but in his? Wilson was certainly racist, and did much to deepen Jim Crow. Why is he given a pass? (For that matter, why is Sen. Robert Byrd of West Va., former KKK organizer, given a pass on his embarrassing past?)Most people were very racist in Bryan's times, including most of the Democratic Party. So why is he singled out for censure? I think a lot has to do with his evangelical identity, and his role in the Scopes trial. Some secularists loathe evangelicals and, I think, have trouble thinking in a balanced way about someone like Bryan. Take a look at the ridiculous review of this book by Publishers Weekly on this site. How does someone read this book and produce that review?



3. If you want to know more about William Jennings Bryan, this is the book for you.
   
   Very well done!



4. Why read a book about a politician who lost the US presidential election three times in a row, and was a white racist to boot?
   
   More than just retelling an American history story, Kazin's masterpiece of US political history does an excellent job of bringing back to life a political scene that has long since passed and mostly forgotten. I burned through this book in one sitting.
   There has not been a WJB biography of this magnitude for quite some time.
   
   Kazin himself in the introduction admits mixed feelings about his protagonist, and there are certainly warts to Bryan's character seen through our 21st century lens. He does an excellent job pointing these issues out, despite the title of the book that makes Bryan sound like a saint. He wasn't - he profited impressively from his public speaking, and like many of his party, was a racist.
   
   What makes Bryan's life worth studying is one sees the start of the 20th century Democratic party in terms of their economic issues. Additionally, one also sees echoes of Bryan's religious bent to politics in modern politics today (think: what recent presidents have invoked the name of God repeatedly, and managed to win overwhelming majorities in rural areas? hmm). No wonder many politicians like him, at least pieces of him...



5. William Jennings Bryan is somewhat of an enigmatic figure in American history. Many of his contempories saw him as a dangerous radical while today he is often seen as a fundamentalist reactionary. How in the world can one man be thought of in such vastly differing ways? In this book Michael Kazin has attempted to answer this question and at the same time he has gone a long way toward clearing the reputation of this great man.
   
   To be sure, Bryan had his flaws and Kazin does not try to gloss over them at all. As a product of his time Bryan was not a friend of African-Americans but how many politicians of his time were? Bryan was also had a terrible problem ever admitting that he was wrong as did his fellow progressive Woodrow Wilson and both men ran into trouble because of it. Still though, when one looks at his entire career Bryan looms as a very large presence in the history of the reform movements of early twentieth century America.
   
   Of course the biggest thing that Bryan is remembered and reviled for is the famous Monkey Trail in Dayton Tennessee. It is all too easy to look at this episode and see a reactionary rather than a progressive thinker but even on the issue of Darwinism this book shows that in some ways Bryan was very much ahead of his time. Bryan critics often fail to mention that many of the early proponents of Darwinism used Darwin's theory to justify eugenics, which is the idea of taking the weakest people out of society so that only the strongest genes will be passed on. Bryan foresaw the serious implications of this idea and it was one of the key reasons that he fought Darwinism so fervently. It was almost as if Bryan could already see Hitler and Stalin with their death camps and this aspect of Bryan's stance on this issue should never be forgotten.
   
   Mr. Kazin has with this book given us the most balanced biography of William Jennings Bryan that I have ever come across. His close association with race bating bigots like Ben Tillman and Tom Watson is not the least bit whitewashed but then again neither are his accomplishments. This book shows us the Bryan who had his warts but who also fought long and bitter fights to gain equal rights for women, to see that free enterprise run amuck would not trample the rights of the average wage earner, and who is as responsible as anybody for the adoption current Federal Reserve System. People all over America owe Bryan a debt of gratitude every time they get their Social Security check and every time that they go to the bank feeling secure because their money is insured. Yes, this author points out Bryan's flaws but he also takes pains to remind the reader of all the positive good that Bryan did and he does so in a very pleasing way. There is not in fact a single boring page in this book. The author's arguments are clear and well defended, his writing style and research are superb and most importantly he has taken up this project with an open mind and because of this he has turned out what I consider the authoritative biography of William Jennings Bryan.

5 comments about Nicholas and Alexandra.

1. In 2000, there was much talk about the "most important person of the 20th Century." My choice was always Gavrilo Princip, the young Bosnian assassin who killed Archduke Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary, igniting World War I, which caused the Russian Revolution, Communism, and the Treaty of Versailles, which led to Naziism, World War II, atomic bombs, and the Cold War.
   
   Of course, there were other factors which formed the tragedy of the twentieth century, and perhaps some of these historical events would have happened anyway. Almost for certain, the Romanov Monarchy would have fallen or been transformed out of recognition without the help of Gavrilo Princip's bullets.
   
   Although the Ottoman Empire was always referred to as "the sick man of Europe," Robert K. Massie illustrates that Russia was not very well either, despite appearances. An obsolescent autocracy, the Russian Empire was mired in time at the dawn of the twentieth century, the great mass of its people existing much as they had 100 years earlier.
   
   Massie's theory, that the hemophilia of Alexis, the young Tsarevich, had an inordinate influence of Russian and subsequent world history, is well thought-out, though perhaps an oversimplification. Yet, it cannot be discounted. The Romanov Dynasty had ruled Russia then for 300 years, and brought the country, by fits and starts, slowly into the orbit of the modern world. Despite this, there is much truth in the observation that "Lenin inherited a nation playing beside a manure pile and Stalin bequeathed a nation playing with an atomic pile." This is not to defend Stalinism, but only to say how little the Romanovs did overall to modernize their State.
   
   When Nicholas II inherited the throne after his father's untimely death, he was woefully unprepared to rule. Dominated for years by archconservative and anti-modernist members of his family, he did little to educate his people, provide health care, build infrastructure, or lift the heavy cloak of official repression that lay over all but ethnic Russians in his realm, or the cloak of cultural repression that lay over the ethnic Russians.
   
   Yet Massie shows us a man and a family of uncommonly kind nature in Nicholas II and his family. His daughter Olga paid personally for the care of a handicapped subject she spied from her carriage one day. The Tsaritsa, Alexandra, despite a reputation as an uncaring woman, herself nursed sick friends before the war and horribly wounded soldiers during the war. The family built hospitals and schools in and around the various cities wherein lay the royal estates. They acted to ameliorate suffering wherever they saw it, without reservation.
   
   Of course, this was the problem. They acted only on what they saw with their own eyes, never recognizing that these sufferings were endemic throughout the realm. Their myopia was part and parcel of the lives of the citified upper classes, completely divorced from the mass of agrarian peasants in the countryside, magnified by the hermetically sealed nature of being an Imperial Family, aided and abetted by sycophants and the self-serving, who kept the real world at a very long arm's length, in order to maintain their own privileged positions. Living in a bubble within a bubble, they were just not aware of conditions in most of Russia.
   
   Nicholas II ruled over the largest domain on earth. Russia today is still the world's largest nation, even shorn of Finland, Poland, the Baltic States, Belarus, the Ukraine, the Central Asian provinces, and (in 1867) Alaska. Sunset in Vladivostok was dawn in Brest-Litovsk. His hundred million subjects included hundreds of peoples speaking hundreds of languages, linked together by a shockingly small road and rail system. The sensitive Nicholas, had he been really cognizant of the shape of things, could have, by a single order, vastly improved the lives of each and every Russian (of course, as he noted, being an autocrat and giving orders does not ensure that they are carried out properly). His greatest failings, as a ruler, all had to do with his decisions to outwardly maintain his Imperial hautre and his autocracy at all costs in the face of cataclysmic change.
   
   This bubble-within-a-bubble existence however, could not spare them from the fact of the Tsarevich's hemophilia. A genetic disorder inherited through the female line (Alexis' Great-Grandmother was Queen Victoria, whose progeny were ravaged by the disease), it prevents the clotting of the blood. When Alexis was born in 1904, the world was a full lifespan away from the development of a usable clotting factor; most hemophiliacs simply bled out and died. The Tsarevich was protected by a full retinue, but this did not help him, and the boy was often in screaming agony and close to death from what might in another child, be a bad bruise. The Heir, therefore lived in a bubble within a bubble within a bubble.
   
   The Tsaritsa, Alexandra, was a solemn, shy, but deeply emotional and loving woman, nicknamed "Sunny" by her husband. To the world, she presented an aloof exterior, and was extremely unpopular with her subjects. Had they known the sorrows and agonies she suffered through with Alexis, her realm, and history, might have treated her far better. But the Imperial Family decided to keep Alexis' condition a closely guarded secret, fearing the destabilization of the Monarchy and Russia in the face of a physically frail Heir. This may have been the Imperial Family's worst error, as it robbed them of an outpouring of sympathy and support from a passionate populace.
   
   Alexandra turned to religion, and ultimately, to Gregory Rasputin, a filthy, degenerate, sexually perverse and personally dissolute monk of peasant extraction. Although derided by most, and called a charlatan by many, Rasputin was perhaps one of the most charismatic men in history, had a devoted following (largely comprised of Society women he'd seduced), did have the power, somehow, to control Alexis' bleeding episodes, and therefore, had the Empress's full and unwavering support in all things.
   
   The feared and hated Rasputin may have indeed been a seer or had mystical powers of some sort, judging from circumstances. Rasputin was not really political, but as his influence over the Romanovs grew, his power expanded commensurately, and he was able to have Ministers dismissed, Generals reassigned to sinecures, and policies changed according to his own whims (expressed as messages from God) or concerns. Capable Russian leaders, who did not know the basis of Rasputin's power, suspected the worst of Alexandra, and in challenging Rasputin found themselves toppled from power. As World War I dawned, Russia was upside-down, its best men in internal exile, and woefully unprepared for war. Rasputin himself counseled against war, stating that Russia would collapse from within. Nonetheless, the British, German and Russian grandsons of Queen Victoria went to war.In that war, millions died, empires fell, nations were born, ideological political systems triumphed, and the stage was set for a darker and yet bloodier future.
   
   The Tsar and his genteel family were consumed, ending their days against a wall before a Bolshevik firing squad, probably not understanding, until the end, that they had been in the eye of a hurricane that remade the world.



2. nicholas and alexandra should never had become czar and crazina of russia.nicholas was just to weak spirit and alexandra to strong without know the real russia people.she saw russian as childern who needed to be told how to run their lives by the papa czar.she hide her son illness and brought in a sexual twisted man of god into her family,ruin the romanov's relationship with it's people.stopping changes that would give citzen russian say in their country.in the end the people turn on the romanov's every thing end tragical.



3. I read this book many years ago and have never forgotten it, and I just recently purchased a copy of my own. Robert Massie is an excellent writer who makes this book memorable for the fun and loving family that the Romanovs were and their terrible, tragic end. I'm now collecting more books on the Romanov dynasty and the individual people who made up this fascinating family. For anyone with an interest, this is the place to start.



4. Far and away one of the best biographies I have ever read. Massie masterfully gives life to the doomed, tragic last Russian Tsar, Nicholas II, and his family. I was absolutely rivetted from page one by this outstanding work. The book gives a sympathetic portrait of Tsar Nicholas, his wife Empress Alexandra, and their ongoing struggle to cope with their haemophiliac son, Alexei, heir to the Russian throne. Alexei's illness indirectly leads to the downfall of the Romanov dynasty and the family's murder. An astonishingly good read, and one I highly recommend to all who are interested in this era of history.



5. Robert Massie's "Nicholas and Alexandra" is a biographical study centered on the lives of the last Tsar and Tsarina of Russia. Massie's portrayal of the last ruling Romanavs is like many other works on the subject in that it is poignant, dramatic, and vibrant; but never dull. However, Massie's work stands out above other works on the subject for its thorough account of the lives of the imperial couple and most of all, its sympathetic portrayal of them.
   
   Nearly all works of the period agree that Tsar Nicholas II was not the blood-drenched despot the Bolshevik revolutionaries claimed him to be, and although he may not have been as benevolent as his contemporary Franz Josef of Austria-Hungary, he at least lacked the bellicose nature of his German counterpart (and early advisor), Wilhelm II. Massie's account demonstrates how Nicholas II was ill-prepared to ascend the throne in after Alexander III, but unlike the contention of other historians, Massie makes a reasonable case in defending the intelligence of the fallen autocrat.
   
   Massie's account of Nicholas and Alexandra does not absolve the couple from their failure to prevent the collapse of the reign and ultimately their country, but it does partially excuse their inflexibility and fatalism on the serious of misfortunes that continued to plague Nicholas from the very day of his coronation; when hundred of Russian peasants were stampeded to death in a overzealous crowd on Khodynka Meadow. Yet, no Romanov apologist can ignore the detrimental influences on Nicholas's reign, including his wife Alexandra, a German Kaiser, and especially a corrupt starets. That such an array of persons from various strata of society could at times impose their will on a man raised to be an autocrat was a tarnish on Nicholas' character.
   
   Despite his habit of being easily swayed at times, Nicholas is not one-dimensional in Massie's account. It is noted how Nicholas ignored the advice of able ministers and most of all; remained unyielding to grant the masses of his subjects the representation and constitution they desired--until it was too late. Even Massie can be counted among the historians who muse whether the Romanov dynasty might have survived had the Tsar been more accommadating to the popular demands of his people--or if war had not erupted in the manner it did in 1914.
   
   Although Massie's work is very thorough, it only briefly touches the clandestine operations of the Tsarist police state in rooting out revolutionaries and assassins from its masses prior to 1917. Indeed, other works (e.g. Edmond Taylor's "The Fall of the Dynasties") are careful to point out that Tsarist police included a host of known double agents whose loyalties were perpetually in doubt. While Massie makes note of that insecurity in his account of Prime Minister Peter Stolypin's assassination in 1911 by a Tsarist agent, he fails to explain how widespread the problem actually was. Indeed, Taylor describes as monarchy's slide to collapse as a "suicide", not because they were unable to stop that slide, but rather because they were unwilling.
   
   Just as it is difficult to excuse the corrupt system of Tsarist counter-revolutionary activity, historians are also unable to justify the Russia's policy in WWI of placing the needs of France above that of her own. The disaster at Tannenburg early in the war is described in detail by Massie, and is correctly portrayed as a premature offensive launched by Russia (with the support of Nicholas) to rescue its beleagured ally from the German onslaught through northern France. Indeed, even after his abdication and arrest, Massie notes how Nicholas pleaded with Kerensky to continue to support the Russia's allies in the war effort--a mission with which the Provisional Government leader would complete in the summer of 1917 with disastrous consequences. Although Massie's "Nicholas and Alexandra" does not outright label the monarchy as a principle agent of its own destruction, his book nevertheless provides a strong case to the conclusion that the last rulers (and their ministers) of the Romanov dynasty practiced an inexplicable policy of self-immolation.
   
   It is perhaps this mystery--or lunacy--of the Romanovs that continues to fascinate so many readers 90 years after their unglorious deaths in their Siberian imprisonment. Undoubtedly, the story of the last Romanovs will continue to perplex students of history for decades to come, and Robert Massie's work will will remain the foremost account of the twilight of Imperial Russia.

5 comments about Muqtada: Muqtada al-Sadr, the Shia Revival, and the Struggle for Iraq.

1. The author provides both a first hand account of the Shia poltical environment after the fall of Saddam's regime as well as a history of the unique and bitter relationship between the Shia and Saddam that is most interesting for westerners as the author explains not only the conflicts between the Shia and Sunni but also between the Shia themselves. The book is not intended to be a bio of Muqtada al-Sadr but to underline his role in the Shia political conflicts within Iraq today. The most interesting aspects of the book is the telling of how the Shia were punished and killed during Saddam regime particularly Sayyid Muqtada al-Sadr's father, Grand Ayatollah Mohammad Mohammad Sadeq al-Sadr. In summary yet informative detail, the author explains how the murder of Grand Ayatollah Mohammad Mohammad Sadeq al-Sadr caused a split among the Shia particularly those leaders that fled the country and then returned after Saddam's fall. The best example of this violent split is when Sayyid Abdul Majid al-Khoei returns to Iraq to assume a leadership role among the Shia but then is brutally murdered almost at Muqtada al-Sadr's door step. The slaughter of the Shia after the coalition stopped during Deset Storm, after encouraging an uprising, is well discussed with the bitterness it invoked along with the post Iraq war misunderstandings by the U.S. occupation most noted by Paul Bremmer. This is a very concise but well written educational look at the political situation in Iraq. My only criticism is that books in detail on the middle east should have a glossary of terms and a defined character list, for those less familar with middle east terms and titles, and I include myself, to assist the reader.



2. Cockburn does a wonderful job using day to day interviews to paint a larger picture deserving of the many accolades he has received in the international press. Iraqi society, much more complex and modern than the American media ever paints, is a boiling cauldron fired by the legacy of Saddam, the sanctions, and now the US occupation.
   
   This book is for anyone who wants an understanding of the Iraqi resistance and Muqtada al-Sadr that goes beyond the moronic simplicity of White House press releases.



3. Patrick Cockburn's approximately 30 years of covering Iraq give him the institutional memory, historical perspective and varied sources to deliver a nuanced profile of Muqtada al-Sadr. Cockburn is not the type of journalist to hang around hotels hobnobbing with elites to get his stories, but is willing to risk his life.
   Cockburn shows that al-Sadr is more pragmatic than radical and that he only has partial control of the Mahdi Army which is less an army than several volunteer militias with varied agendas. The arrogance and brutality of Saddam Hussein and the Americans who overthrew him is also documented and how it allowed al-Sadr to gain power no matter how perilous his grip on it is.



4. This is quite simply THE definitive book on the Iraqi Shia political movements. It is written by the best (and sometimes it seems only) reporter in Iraq. Its must-reading for anyone who wants to understand the real political situation in Iraq.



5. If you will read just one book about the Iraq before and after the invasion, this is. Give valuable info about why was so rapid the develop of shia militias and shia political parties - and their rivalries. Shed light of the mistrust toward the US by the shia's poor of the south that were slaughtered under Saddam after the insurrection rise up against him. Many believing the 1991 coalition will intervene and help them.
   
   The actual ethnic cleansing - another actual not editorialized as such genocide in the hopeless international community watch - taking part in Iraq is covered sadly, pretty painful. Whith the corrupt government seeing as not legitimate puppets of the US, that are part of the sectarian clashes with their private army's/militias or self defense group's, sometimes dressed as police or army units.
   
   Finnaly, why and how so quickly Muqtada rise up is explain.

5 comments about The Faiths of the Founding Fathers.

1. This book, though flawed, is an interesting and charming survey of the religious atmosphere of eighteenth century America. I especially enjoyed the accounts of the lives of Washington, Adams, Jay and others. One of the strengths of the book is its analysis of the religious views of the wives of some of the major founders.
   
   I ordered this book because it was touted to be a moderate statement on the Christian vs. Enlightenment debate about the nation's founding. But what I discovered is that Holmes generally gives more credence to the idea that "Deism influenced, in one way or another, most of the political leaders who designed the new American government." Although Holmes does recognize that there were some orthodox Christians among the founders, he places emphasis upon Deism and Unitarianism as the guiding faiths of the new system. In this regard his views are clearly in opposition to those of John Eidsmoe, (Christianity and the Constitution: The Faith of our Founding Fathers), who claimed that most of the founders were orthodox in their beliefs. Eidsmoe states that deism was the religion of only about 5 and one half percent of the founders. He argues that confessed deists were not permitted to hold public office around the time of the Constitutional Convention as evidenced by the laws of the period.
   
   Holmes seems to accept the idea that Christianity and reason were considered to be in opposition. But this spin has led to a number of rather misleading historical characterizations. For example, Holmes claims that the work of Bacon, Newton, and Locke, provided the foundation of the Enlightenment in England despite the fact that all three men were orthodox Christians. Again, Homes argues that Locke regarded human reason to be the test of truth "rather than religious dogma and mystery." Yet John Locke, the philosopher, wrote a book entitled the The Reasonableness of Christianity, believed in miracles, the authority of the Bible, and the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
   
   On page 47, Holmes writes about indirect references to the Deity with such phrases as "Nature's God," "Creator," and "divine Providence" calling them the postulations of Deists. Apparently, Holmes is ignorant of the fact that these phrases are nothing less than the intellectual property of the Christian Church and were used for centuries prior to the Enlightenment. The formula "Law of Nature and of Nature's God" used in the Declaration of Independence is actually a reference to the theological correlation between general and special revelation. The term, "law of nature," has been cited by Locke, Calvin, Hooker, Coke, Blackstone, Rutherford, the Westminster Confession of Faith, and St. Thomas Aquinas. The origins of this ancient phrase have nothing to do with deism or with any sort of nature religion. For these reasons, I find the book to be a bit too slanted toward the Carl Becker deistic America thesis.



2. David Holmes seems to be on a mission to disqualify our Founding Fathers as Christians. He picks a few names, Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, Monroe and Madison as if these were the only ones who had any influence in our early government. Further, he wants to make each of them a Deist when, in fact, most of their writings lead to a very strong Christian base. Like any person in public office, some speeches and writings can be taken out of context and you can easily make the writer or speaker appear to be something they are not. An in depth study of any of these six men will prove they lean far more to a Christian base than Deism. In addition, Holmes leaves out more than 30 other Founding Fathers who were very strong Christians. Somehow, many authors today have a goal of trying to convince us that our country was not founded upon Christian principles. A good source to confirm our country's foundational basis is David Barton's book, "Original Intent". I think Holmes book is slanted and short on factual information.



3. This book was very well written. The author made the case that some of the founding fathers were not necessarily Christian, but Deists. His conclusions stem from letters written to, and from, various people that had contact with them (friends, family, clergymen, etc.) - which makes sense; however, some of the author's assumptions (i.e. the language the "fathers" used in writing and speeches) about how they referred to God (the Almighty, Nature's God, etc.) is not necessarily the best way to prove that the founding fathers were not Christian.
   
   It certainly shed some light, although not definitive, on the faiths of our founding fathers and their families.



4. Shortly after Washington's death, certain writers began trying to depict him as a devout orthodox Christian. Mason Weem's book of 1800 was representative of this group and was reprinted regularly with newly added tales about Washington the pious man of prayer. The memorable story about the cherry tree came in the fifth edition in 1806 but the disreputable Weems was easily discredited. Jefferson, Madison, and many others disputed all these efforts. "Sir, he was a Deist," one of Washington's pastors declared upon discussion of the question.
   
   Franklin and the first five presidents were All Deists, a minimalist religious belief system without an organized hierarchy that sprouted from the Enlightenment. For the straight story about their beliefs and the varied Christian denominations of the colonies, this book can't be beat.
   
   The excellent reviews already on this site say it all. I'll just add that "Faiths of the Founding Fathers" is well organized, authoritatively researched, extensively documented, and unusually readable. History buffs and the general public will like this book.
   
   DB



5. A concise primer on the faiths of our nation's founders. Fair assessments, avoiding any kind of dogmatic revisionism (be it evangelical or secular). Holmes deals with each figure individually, avoiding sweeping claims, and appreciating nuances. Avoid Meacham's _American Gospel_; it is simply an amalgam of anecdotes with no thesis other than "America has a public religion" driven over and over again. Stick with Dr. Holmes!

4 comments about Making Government Work.

1. That's the title of the most practical "political" book you'll ever read. It is a user's manual for representative democratic government, written by former Senator Ernest F. (Fritz) Hollings of South Carolina, who spent six impressively productive decades in public service.As a reporter and campaign worker, I've known Fritz Hollings since he was the movie star-handsome "boy governor" of South Carolina in 1960 and JFK's invaluable ally in rounding up southern votes to gain the presidency. "Fritz" is a master politician; even more, he is a tireles public servant who truly tries to make government work for everyone he represents. Hollings has a razor sharp wit and a natural gift for memorable story-telling. He takes the reader behind backroom closed doors and into dark corners of political intrigue and describes how vitally important things get done. Hollings, who has been called "a visionary workhorse," focused throughout his career on putting government on a sound financial basis and promoting economic development and job creation. In a half century in Washington, he sponsored legislation on the budget, telecommunications, defense, trade, the environment and space exploration. In 1975, he pushed through the Automobile Fuel Economy Act and tried to launch an energy conservation revolution. In his presidential campaign a decade later, he sounded the earliest warnings against "outsourcing" and the loss of essential American manufacturing jobs overseas. Americans need to read and embrace his practical messages in this remarkable book and follow Fritz's lead. Richard J. Whalen www.richardwhalen.com



2. Every so often while reading Fritz Hollings' autobiography I had to stop and ask myself a question: Was there really ever such a person in American politics? Someone who actually ran for office with the intention of making his city, state and country better places? Someone who would admit to mistakes -- and even to a little political expediency -- and who then tried to make up for it? Someone unafraid to make fun of Sam Donaldson to his face on national television?
   
   This book should have been published by a mass market imprint and renamed to sell to a larger audience. But it's part of Hollings' charm that he hides the fascinating and candid narrative of his political life behind a practical and well-meaning title. He really wanted government to work for the people -- as a state senator, governor and U.S. Senator -- and often he succeeded. Unfortunately, he never made it to the White House, but that's an American political story best told by a historian of our locked-up, frequently suffocating two-party duopoly. There isn't quite room for a Fritz Hollings in a system that requires the president to be the leader of his party before he is the leader of his country.
   
   I first met Senator Hollings when I was writing a book about NAFTA and there is no more intelligent, or acerbic critic of "free trade" dogma than he. But Hollings' book is replete with other engrossing stories where his honest differences with the mainstream of his constituency and of the Democratic Party placed him in the role of dissident. From racial integration in the early 1950s to Iraq in the early 20th century, we get the always forthright account -- sometimes first-hand -- of how political reality in America conflicts with political honesty. And through it all shines Hollings' utter lack of cynicism -- his determination to make the system work, no matter how corrupt it may be.
   
   Making Government Work ought to be read by anyone who wants to know more about Brown V. Board of Education (the little known story of the Summerton 60 was particularly enlightening for me), trade politics, campaign finance, and the Senate vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq. But even if you're not a student of recent American history, or if you disagree with Hollings on his positions, you'll enjoy his sense of humor. A great politician tries to inspire, of course, but a truly effective politician knows just when to make his audience laugh. Along with Robert Dole, Hollings is the best I've ever heard, with or without a script.



3. 
   Rarely has Senator Fritz Hollings used his renowned wit to more devastating effect than when he was interviewed in 1990 on the ABC program, This Week with David Brinkley. Some weeks earlier he had reportedly bought a bargain-priced Korean-made suit on a field trip to Seoul. Given his role as a leading critic of Korean dumping in the American textile market, the alleged purchase was the sort of trivia that passed for news in some quarters. Although Hollings had arrived at the ABC studio expecting to talk about the federal government's worsening budget deficits, the interviewer Sam Donaldson lost no time in getting to the nub of the matter: whether or not Hollings was at that moment wearing the notorious suit.
   
   "Senator," Donaldson said, "you're from the great textile-producing state of South Carolina. Is it true you have a Korean tailor." Before Hollings could respond, Donaldson pressed on: "Let's see the label in there. What is the label in there?"
   
   "I bought it," Hollings replied, "the same place right down the street where, if you want to personalize this thing, you got that wig, Sam."
   
   The entire studio erupted. The blustery -- and bewigged -- Donaldson had had, if not his head handed to him, at least his tonsorial codpiece. But he was to exact a terrible revenge. Although Hollings had previously been a favorite on the program, Donaldson made sure that the courtly Southern Senator (and a man who still sports a full head of hair -- all evidently securely attached to its owner) was never invited back. Hollings had insulted a vain and not overly intelligent member of the new aristocracy of Big Foot media interviewers and for punishment he would be cast into outer darkness.
   
   In "Making Government Work," an autobiographical account of the steadily worsening problems that have engulfed the American political system in the last six decades, Hollings tells this anecdote as an illustration of how America has lost its way. Politicians, he writes, "are failing people because journalists too often are in the business of pursuing sideshows and not looking at the big picture." His point is, of course, irrefutable. But there is a deeper moral here that Hollings is too polite to state explicitly: while, by the standards of his trivia-obsessed profession, Donaldson might claim to have been within his rights in bringing up the alleged purchase, his insulting tone was utterly inexcusable. No decent person should have been addressed in such a way. That a member of the U.S. Senate should be so addressed bespeaks a degree of decay in the American body politic that bodes ill for the entire future of American democracy.
   
   In dissecting what has really happened to the American empire since its zenith in 1945, Hollings enjoys an unrivalled command of his material. Few if any political actors have played at such a high level for so long. A life-long Democrat, he was elected to the South Carolina legislature in 1948, became governor in 1958, and entered the U.S. Senate in 1966.
   
   Hollings's place in history rests on his leadership role in addressing three of the most serious policy problems of the era -- the federal budget deficits, the trade deficits, and the depradations of the K Street lobbying system. Readers of this book will not be disappointed in the space he allocates to each.
   
   Hollings is perhaps best known for his efforts to rein in the U.S. budget deficits. He had been a budget hawk since his days as governor of South Carolina and in the U.S. Senate in 1974 he hit the theme hard. He returned it to again in partnering two Republican Senators Phil Gramm and Warren Rudman in pushing through the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings balanced budget legislation of the 1980s. The legislation was severely weakened by a constitutional challenge in the Supreme Court. Remedial efforts have not worked because, in Hollings's account, successive presidential administrations -- Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II -- have "brazenly violated the law."
   
   The soaring budget deficits have been a contributory factor in an even bigger and less tractable problem, the trade deficits, but the main cause of the trade deficits, as Hollings shows, is a fundamentally wrong-headed American trade policy. He identifies fellow Democrat Jimmy Carter as the President who did most to put the United States on the the course to industrial emasculation and ever-increasing foreign indebtedness. The basic problem is that the present policy is merely "one-way free trade." America may open its markets all its wants but if other nations do not reciprocate, the net effect is that American industries bleed to death. With the American current account deficit now running consistently at around 5 percent of gross domestic product or more, the Bush administration has daily to go hat in hand to other nations, most notably China, to scrounge the finance to make ends meet. For somebody who remembers as clearly as Hollings does how things used to be, America's predicament is truly unbelievable. In 1966, the year Hollings entered the Senate, America enjoyed a _surplus_ of 0.4 percent of gross domestic product. Indeed the United States did not incur a single deficit in the 1960s and trade deficits did not become "baked in" to the American economic structure until the Carter era.
   
   Underlying the budget and trade problems is the lobbying problem. The Supreme Court again has much to answer for because, in the Buckley v. Valeo decision of 1976, it vitiated a major Congressional effort to stop dirty money polluting American democracy. Hollings is undoubtedly right that this ruling has not only utterly corrupted the American political process but has undermined the collegiality that once characterized the Senate. As Hollings points out, in earlier times when money played a less important role, Senators frequently spent the weekends in Washington and socialized with one another. That helped encourage a spirit of bipartisan cooperation in which Senators worked together -- much of the time at least -- in the national interest. These days they have no time anymore. They are on the road every weekend scrounging funds for their next campaign -- and in any case they are too busy outdoing one another's soundbites to focus on the sober task of legislating wisely.
   
   While the policy issues provide the meat in this important book, many readers will particularly relish Hollings's recollections of the fascinating personalities he has known over the years. He devotes a chapter, for instance, to the Kennedy family. Having met Robert Kennedy as far back as 1954, he forged a close relationship with the Kennedys that among other things resulted in his delivering his crucial anti-Catholic state to John F. Kennedy in 1960. Such was the degree of intimacy he enjoyed in the Kennedy circle that, as he records in this book, he more than once was treated to the off-color side of JFK's wit.
   
   He also has much to say about Robert Kennedy, whom he refers to throughout as Bob rather than Bobby. (Although that may seem slightly strange to the younger generation, Robert Kennedy generally styled himself as "Bob" in notes to friends. The press's preference for "Bobby" appears to have been inspired by JFK.) The Fritz-Bob relationship was evidently generally very cordial. But JFK's all-elbows younger brother more than once got Hollings's dander up. One telling episode concerns Robert Kennedy's run for the presidency in 1968. As a preparatory move, Kennedy decided to go on a tour of the nation publicizing some of the worst slums. One destination he planned to hit was in South Carolina -- at least it was until word reached Hollings's ears.
   
   Hollings writes:
   
   "As soon as I heard of Kennedy's plans, I picked up the telephone and told Kennedy I was working to do something about hunger in South Carolina.....He responded that everything had been arranged. I didn't understand the problem, he added....At that point I had had enough. 'Now look here,' I shouted. 'You go down there there, and I am going to get on a plane and go straight up to Harlem [in New York state, which Kennedy represented]. I am going to call every TV station, and then I am going to walk right through Harlem for four or five days, everywhere I can, and find every rat eating every child's eye out. And everywhere I go, I'm going to say why isn't Kennedy here? I am going to have a New York hunger expose at the very time you have yours in South Carolina.'"
   
   South Carolina was dropped from Kennedy's itinerary.
   
   Kennedy had learned what Sam Donaldson was to discover in 1990 -- that Fritz Hollings is not someone to tangle with lightly.
   
   "Making Government Work" is a wise, well written, and consistently absorbing analysis of the epochal crisis now facing the American nation.



4. For almost four decades, Ernest F. "Fritz" Hollings had the quickest mind and sharpest wit of anyone in the U.S. Senate, which sometimes caused him troubles with the media and his political colleagues. Retiring in 2005, Senator Hollings has written a political memoir that is instantly a classic history of progressive politics during the last half of the 20th Century, much of which he helped shape.
   
   Hollings, a native South Carolinian and Citadel graduate, returned to Charleston in late 1945 after three years of combat in Africa and Europe. Eager to get on with his life, Hollings got a law degree in record time and joined a law firm, where his uncle was a partner. To give him some local visibility, the senior partners encouraged him to run for a seat in the South Carolina State Legislature, which he admits they thought he would surely lose.
   
   In 1948, segregation dominated work and life in the state. During that campaign, the daily paper in Charleston publicly questioned the several candidates, "Do you or do you not solicit the Negro vote." Hollings one-line written response was, "Do you or do you not solicit Negro subscribers and advertisers to your newspaper?" Hollings claims that the paper stayed angry with him for 20 years. Nonetheless, Hollings won.
   
   The day of his inauguration, the county superintendent of education asked the freshman legislator to go look at something with him. The next morning they went to the local elementary school for black children. It was a single room holding 80 children in two grades, all taught by one teacher. The school had no bus, forcing the children to walk as much as nine miles and back every day. It deeply impressed the young war veteran who had fought besides and commanded black troops during the war.
   
   Hollings' first action when he got to the South Carolina Legislature was to champion a 3 percent sales tax whose proceeds would be dedicated to improving education in the state and making the black schools equal to those for white children. It was a radical idea at the time, but Hollings prevailed.
   
   Over the next 14 years, his legislative colleagues elevated him to the position of Speaker Pro Tem and then the voters elected him Lt. Governor and Governor. Unlike as happened in other Southern states such as Mississippi, Alabama and Arkansas, Governor Hollings in the early 1960s guided the state's transition from segregation to integration without riots or a single death and the state's economy from agriculture to industry.
   
   Relying on a "pay as you go" budgetary approach, Hollings helped the state get a three star rating from the national credit agencies, built the nation's finest adult technical training centers and attracted hundreds of new factories and hundreds of thousands of new jobs to the state.
   
   The theme of this book is "making government work," which Hollings did. A friend and supporter of Jack, Bobby and Ted Kennedy, Fritz Hollings was one of the progressive politicians who created what became known as the "New South" which overcame the problems of race, bitter prejudice and deep poverty that had prevailed since the Civil War.
   
   Entering the U.S. Senate in 1966, Fritz Hollings made hunger in America, and then elsewhere, a national issue. He wrote a popular book on the topic -- The Case Against Hunger and championed the creation of dozens of progressive programs, including those to help women, infants and children. He held the first hearings on climate change and helped enact legislation to prohibit dumping in the oceans.
   
   An advocate of fiscal discipline, Hollings fought a decades-long battle against the "supply side" borrow and spend policies pushed by Ronald Reagan and his GOP successors. As a defense "hawk," he also fought the Carter Administration's efforts to weaken the national defense.
   
   With the biting wit for which he is famous, Hollings describes the trade and ideological battles he had with every President from Lyndon Johnson to George W. Bush.
   
   In 1984, Hollings sought the Democratic nomination for President. Following the failed Presidency of fellow Southern Jimmy Carter, the candidate with his distinctly South Carolina accent was unable to overcome the doubts of Iowa and New Hampshire voters about electing another Southern and he soon ended his race. More is the pity, because no Democrat since FDR was better qualified by education, experience, temperament, and outlook to be the U.S. President.
   
   In the last chapter, Hollings identifies 14 actions that will enable the U.S. to protect our prosperity and once again make it profitable for corporations to invest in the United States and create good-paying jobs with benefits here.
   
   He also argues that we must change the existing way that we finance our political campaigns. In its 1974 decision Buckley v Valeo, the Supreme Court equated free speech with money. In a political world now dominated by expensive television ads, a candidate can spend an unlimited amount of their own money in a campaign while individual contributors are limited as to the amount they can give to their opponents. Thus, the rich have unlimited "free speech" when running for office, while those without wealth have as much free speech as the money they can raise in small chunks. The Court's decision created a Congress increasingly dominated by the superrich and a race for campaign money that is destroying our representative democracy.
   
   As a solution, Hollings proposes the adoption of a Constitutional Amendment that would allow Congress to impose limits on political contributions. His goal is to make our elections competitive and democratic.
   
   Making Government Work is lively, accessible and well written. It captures the wit and wisdom of one of America's most experienced and accomplished public servants and it offers sensible, politically feasible solutions that truly can make government work. John McCain, Barack Obama and their advisors would benefit from reading this book.

5 comments about Young Stalin.

1. This is great action/adventure in the same vain as Georg Lucas's Young Indiana Jones series. Follow the exploits and exciting adventures of a young Joseph Stalin as he travels the world with a cadre of friends, including an wacky funny version of 12-year old Leon Trotsky...and in regards to that, you will perhaps laugh uneasily at the forshadowing when the 14 year old Stalin jokes to his 12-year old pal: "if you keep making those bad jokes, I am going to have you killed!" I especially enjoyed the love interest of the young Stalin, 13-year old Ameila Earhart, who takes Stalin barnstorming as they steal one of the Wright Brother's early planes. This novel is suitable for the whole family, and I think it is only a matter of time before Disney or one of the studies pick this up and makes a family movie out of it!



2. I'm probably in agreement with most in saying this is one of the most entertaining reads about such a dreadful subject as "Soso". As with Potemkin's biography, Mr. Montefiore's ability to unearth biographical details gives life to the characters. I'll mention just a few juicy anecdotes about the book (in no particular order): the author manages to interview an old man aged 109 at the time who 100 years earlier had seen Soso bereave his first bride, Kato; he reveals that the Okhrana was foresightfully worried that airplanes, back then, could be used for suicide attacks on the seat of government; he walks us through the various fathers Stalin could have had; and he takes us to Soso's last, longest and harshest Siberian exile beyond the arctic circle.



3. 
   First of all this is probably the best non-fiction book I've read in recent memory. Montefiore's portrait of a young criminal virtuoso measures up favourably to some of the best biographies ever written, works like Sylvia Nasar's 'A Beautiful Mind' and Martin Gilbert's 'Churchill', .
   
   The style of writing is unique in that it is both direct and elegant, a combination of clipped factual biography and sensational prose that succeeds in turning a historical document into a novel that puts your modern day bestselling thriller to shame (I'm looking at you Da Vinci Code). Stalin's days growing up in a provincial Georgian town, from the traditional yearly town brawls, to being a choirboy in the church, to fomenting anarchy in the seminary after his discovery of Marxism (Stalin probably wouldn't have made a great priest anyway), the author's diligently researched work gives the reader an often hilarious portrait of a surprisingly likeable young Georgian who, with some luck and charisma, just happened to become one of the most callous and paranoid autocrats in the history of the Russian empire.
   
   I thought it unfortunate that the author didn't really expand upon the particular brand of Marxism that Stalin espoused. Although to be fair he does remark that Stalin could quote and paraphrase Marx effectively enough to convince anyone of the cogency of his arguments, which is probably more revealing than any ideological claims. Like most fanatics, he expropriated the facts that suited him. In any case the book is about the Stalin, and not the revolution or Marxism.
   
   Another difficulty that people might encounter is the deluge of Georgian and Russian names that flit in and out of Stalin's life. Spandarian, Shaumian, Egnatashvili, Davrichewy, Alliluyeva, Svanidze, Mukhtarov, Sverdlov, Lunarcharsky, Dybenko, Kamenev...keeping track of everyone is like being Kirstie Alley's nutritionist, the shear quantitiy and variety is overwhelming. Sometimes people show up just so they can get killed a few pages later, but I suppose we can blame Stalin for that and not Sebag-Montefiore. In any case the author is adept at separating the important figures from more minor actors, without wasting much space on repetition or lengthy digressions.
   
   A few minor editing mistakes and the aforementioned quibbles however, do not detract from the fact that this is a first rate work of scholarship and writing. Easy five stars.



4. Even with today's conveniences of travel, it would take an extraordinary person simply to get around all the transit points and destinations in Stalin's young life. And as to personal networking skills, he seemed both to command the underground while using little effort to find support casually walking on the street.
   
   The writing and historical story-telling by the author were outstanding. While having read and viewed quite a bit on this epoch in history, I never previously got the significance of Stalin throughout the entire revolutionary ordeal. Presently, with this book's influence, I pivot from from viewing him as a crude power grabber in the later phases as we are inclined to think based on past western accounts. There was a great deal more depth to the character and story, as this historian reveals.
   
   This is a monumental contribution to straightening out modern history. It clarifies a great deal.



5. It is well known that Trotsky for a long time fatally underestimated Stalin, whom he thought colourless and plodding. The flamboyant Trotsky was for years more famous than the laconic provincial from Georgia, but if he had familiarized himself with Stalin's early career, he would have realized, as Lenin did, that Stalin was ruthless and efficient. This book documents Stalin's early career in great detail. It shows the charisma, leadership qualities, toughness and ambition that he had displayed from his schooldays onwards; how he was hardened by the brutality of his drunken father and by the violent nature of Georgian society; what a genius he had for organizing strikes, the burning of oil refineries, murderous bank raids and piracy, protection rackets and kidnappings, while himself not taking a direct part. Sebag Montefiore says that Stalin's involvement in some of these crimes has never been conclusively proved; but he has little doubt that they all bore his stamp. Stalin frequently used disguises and aliases, and several times escaped from prison or from exile.
   
   The frequent inefficiencies of the Okhrana and the Tsarist police emerge strongly in this account; but it was not always inefficiency: Stalin had many informers inside the security forces, just as they had many informers inside all revolutionary parties - so much so that some have suspected Stalin himself of at times having been a Tsarist agent, which Sebag Montefiore does not believe. But Stalin did have many people murdered whom he suspected of being agents for the security forces, sometimes perhaps because real agents planted such suspicions in his mind. The worst traitor was Roman Malinovsky, a man whom Stalin trusted implicitly, but who was instrumental in getting him sent to the worst of his exiles in 1913 and then betrayed Stalin's attempts to escape from there also. Malinovsky's treachery was exposed in 1914. Sebag Montefiore says that Stalin's future suspicions of even his closest comrades was rooted in this experience.
   
   The book is a prequel of the author's The Court of the Red Tsar, and, as in that book, Sebag Montefiore pays little attention to ideology. He consistently calls Stalin's followers gangsters, and some of them indeed were no more than that: Stalin certainly made use of the criminal underworld. But he himself and many of his followers (women as well as men) were more than simply gangsters. Of course they believed - as do the followers of Bin Laden today - that the ends justify the most brutal and ruthless means; but the ends were ideological. Stalin fought for Bolshevism when among the Georgian (Marxist) Social Democrats, the Mensheviks were in a majority; he was prepared to challenge (successfully) even his hero Lenin when Lenin thought the Bolsheviks should take part in the elections after the 1905 Revolution. He was not interested in personal enrichment, and the bulk of the proceeds of the bank-raids he organized went to Lenin or to the Bolshevik cause in the Caucasus, keeping back only a little to celebrate each successful heist in a wild party.
   
   We see Stalin becoming the leading Bolshevik inside Russia while Lenin was abroad: he joined the Bolshevik Central Committee in 1912 with special responsibility for Bolshevik policy on nationalities; he edited Pravda (where he sometimes took a different line from Lenin's and indeed turned down forty-seven of articles Lenin sent in!) But then he was sent into exile, and the description of his four years (1913 to 1917) near the Arctic Circle is one of the most graphic parts of the book. In October 1916, with the war going badly, the exiles were conscripted. Before they had left Siberia, the Tsar had fallen, and the Kerensky's government ordered their release, March 1917, and Stalin returned to Petrograd.
   
   Claiming seniority, he resumed the editorship of Pravda and was the most dominant Bolshevik until Lenin arrived in Russia three weeks later; then he aligned himself with Lenin's determination to fight the Provisional Government. In July, afer a failed Bolshevik uprising, Kerensky's government struck at the Bolsheviks. Trotsky, Kamenev and other leaders were imprisoned; Lenin and Zinoviev went into hiding. Stalin, for some reason left at liberty, was once again briefly in charge. In September the imprisoned leaders were released when Kerensky needed their help against General Kornilov; and then began the struggle inside the Bolshevik Party between Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin on the one hand who now wanted an immediate uprising, and `the Waverers', Kamenev and Zinoviev on the other who thought it too dangerous. But Lenin had his way, and the Bolsheviks seized power. Sebag Montefiore enjoys himself describing some of the farcical elements of the take-over: `the reality of October was more farce than glory. Tragically, the real Revolution, pitiless and bloody, started the moment this comedy ended.'
   
   

No comments about 7 años secuestrado por las FARC.