5 comments about Secret Lives of the First Ladies: What Your Teachers Never Told You About the Women of the White House.

1. the book arrived in good condition and in a timely matter. I am a very satisfied customer!!



2. Recently a foreign journalist interviewing George W. Bush asked the President of the United States to turn out his pockets. What an interesting, humanizing thing to ask of the most powerful man on Earth. And exactly the kind of thing that never occurs in the burlesque of today's 24 hour electronic news cycle. The contents of our pockets, those little handy nooks that serve as contingency storage for our day-to-day indispensables, speak wonderful, accessible volumes about us as people. Show me what you have in your pockets and, whether or not I know WHO you are, I get a glimpse what KIND of person you are. In Secret Lives of the First Ladies, Cormac O'Brien has politely turned out the pockets of the spouses of each of our presidents, and it's a neat-o treasure trove he uncovers. His style is neither lewd nor exploitative, though, to be sure, there's plenty of juicy stuff here. His project is a sort of cameo portraiture of some forty seven intriguing and often remarkable women. The only flattery in these portraits is a consistent, entertaining, and often astounding disclosure of each woman's individual humanity. It is tempting to read the book in little chunks (as I did at first) owing to its concise chaptering. However, it's a real pleasure go back and review long stretches, watching how the public appearance of the First Lady has evolved over time while her private role has remained remarkably consistent: she is the president's wife. Which is to say, sometimes she is a loving yet diminutive spousal anchor and sometimes she is a headstrong engine of scandal and outrage. Sometimes she is a fully enfranchised partner in even the weightiest decision-making at the executive mansion, including public policy. That there were first ladies fitting all these descriptions in every era since the founding of the republic, to me, was quite amazing. If you know any married couples, you will find the First Ladies, good and bad, tragic and heroic, satisfyingly and entertainingly familiar. Predictably, a frustrating aspect of The Secret Lives of the First Ladies is the rigid brevity of its entries, particularly in chapters describing women whom one would like to examine more closely. The challenge is to keep track of those First Ladies whose full biographies you now want to find and read. Alas, one has the nagging fear that those biographies won't be as frank and entertaining as these admittedly brief introductions. But, such is the nature of this omnibus beast. O'Brien's prose is a yummy balance of richness and skim-ability with very few false notes. The design and illustration are a constant reassurance that this is a social visit and not a college text. You're here to make friends and there is no requirement to pass a final exam. A pleasure to read cover-to-cover or simply to table hop as you meet these one-of-a-kind ladies. Of its genre, this is an A+.



3. If you like trivia, you'll enjoy this book. If you have only enough time to read short chapters or a few pages at a time, again, you'll like this book. Each chapter, which is about one first lady, is only a few pages in length -- perfect for bedtime reading for tired moms like me. There was enough information about each first lady to pique my interest, and make me want to find more in-depth biographies about many of the women.



4. A very good read! Interesting facts about all the first ladies. It is sure to make you laugh. You will find out things you did not know. Entertaining.



5. Warning: Do not buy this book for an elderly person, people with bifocals or people who wear glasses to read - unless you can get it in LARGE print.
   
   I bought this book for my mother. However, the typeset is soooooo small and light weight that the words literally just looked like lines on the page to her.

5 comments about Winter Brothers: A Season at the Edge of America.

1. Ivan Doig is a poet who writes lovely stories and autobiographical tales of old Montana. He is right up there with Wallace Stegner, but his prose and stories are more resonant.
   
   Washington Post said a few years ago that Ivan Doig is one of the 'finest writers' in America. I agree. Had the pleasure of spending a couple of days with Ivan and his wife, Carol, at a Stanford Old West seminar in 2000. What a terrific and humble guy.
   
   I recommend you read one of Doig's TRILOGY first. They are semi-biographical about his family settling from Scotland into the Two Medicine high country of Montana last century. "Dancing at the Rascal Fair" is #1, followed by "English Creek", my favorite. Fabulous writing, period.
   
   Assuming you read and like "Winter Brothers", you will love Doig's others novels and autbiographical books. He is a treasure to the art of writing.
   
   Peter B. Liebowitz



2. Generally, I love what Doig has written, but I had trouble getting into this book. I hung in and completed it; and by the end, I was sorry to finish it. I guess I'm saying I prefer his fiction.



3. 
   Ivan Doig found gold when he came across the unpublished diaries of James Gilchrist Swan in the Manuscripts Section of the University of Washington library. Swan was a pioneer on the Olympic Peninsular, living mainly among the Indians at Neah Bay and Cape Flattery, the western-most edge of the contiguous United States. Doig spent one full winter season, 90 days, living on the Peninsular, during which he kept a daily journal of his own, almost all of it incorporating an examination of Swan's 1862-1898 diaries. It's a fascinating book.
   
   Doig, a prodigious writer himself, is ever in awe of the sheer massiveness of Swan's diary. Spread across dozens of pocket-sized (for the most part) diaries, comprising two-and-a-half million words, and spanning four decades, Swan's magnum opus recorded daily life, from the mundane ("swept out the schoolhouse again") to the (for him) magnificent (the Smithsonian finally gets around to publishing his manuscript on the Makah Indians). "The diaries dazzle and dazzle me" [Doig writes] "first simply by their total and variety." Again and again he reminds us of Swan's quantitative achievement, describing in loving detain the physicality of the diaries: their varying sizes, the neat handwriting, the care he took in recording weather information. He also quotes freely from them, in random clips, interesting encounters with people on the Peninsular: Indians come to him seeking advice, friends share drinks with him in a saloon, fishing and hunting trip companions shoot the breeze with him about the latest gossip. The diary seems a perfect marriage of the simple data of day-to-day life and Swan's loftier reflections on what they all might mean. Doig has obviously gained much from his 90 days spent with Swan and his extensive diary, and he makes us eager and willing companions in this exploration. It's my favorite of Doig's books. Highly recommended.



4. I've enjoyed this delightful book more than once. Doig writes a travel narrative as he retraces the life and journeys of a fellow named Swan who left detailed daily diaries of life on Washington's Olympic Peninsula during the 1850s. This book provides an insightful look at the Pacific Northwest and the early interaction between settlers and the native Northwest Coast Makah tribes at Neah Bay and Cape Alava. This book is a must-read, just like Doig's "The Sea Runners" and Annie Dillard's "The Living," if you are to understand the Pacific Northwest of the past or present. Doig (via Swan's experiences living on the reservation as an English teacher to Makah children) discusses Haida native art and mythology as well as whale-hunting and potlatches. Just an awesome and insightful read, especially for a cold winter evening by the fire. Makes me want to pull out my copy and read it again, and again, and again.



5. After enjoying listening to Ivan Doig's autobiographical books, I was anxious to hear more and chose the "Winter Brothers" book on tape. The common theme that ties the two stories in this book together are fairly solid, but for me the two stories together were frustrating and less easy to follow than his other books. Although a major problem was the fact that the reader didn't use much of a voice change to differentiate between Doig and Swan (maybe in this case reading the book would have been better), I at times found myself wishing that the Swan entries could be less interrupted. Also, while Doig is an artist with word descriptions, they were occasionally a bit distracting. On the positive side, the descriptions of the Northwest setting and the character of Swan and his relations with the Indians were fascinating and educational. And even though I wished for the Swan story to be less interrupted, it sounds like Swan was a very prolific diarist and it was nice that Doig did the gleaning of the most interesting parts for us and filled in the background context that so enriched them.

5 comments about Cagney.

1. I loved the biography of James Cagney. I especially loved the chapter dedicated to "Yankee Doodle Dandy", which has been one of my favorite movies since I was a child.



2. I think that Mr. McCabe betrayed Mr. Cagneys trust by submitting personal and private matters that Mr. Cagney worked so hard to conceal. I respect James Cagney b/c he was a wonderful actor and I'm always entertained by his movies. I stopped reading this book b/c it was so personal. This book is perfect for all the psycho tabloid readers who are too wrapped up in other peoples lives than their own. If there is any respectable people left in this world...there are few...I would recommend the book that Cagney wrote himself, Cagney by Cagney. I am ashamed that I bought this.



3. this autobiography by the ghostwriter of Cagney by Cagny is a fine, loving and detailed portrait of an artist with humility, integrity and boundless talent. One of the finest autobiographies I've read. Cagney the man is so much more interesting then Cagney the actor and Cagney the actor was one hell of a talented soul. The writer makes us understand Jim Cagney so well and develop so much empathy for the man that it's like he's sitting across from you and telling his own life story.



4. 
   Seen the Movies? Read this book!
   
   A great bio of one of Filmdom's Gods.
   
   You will learn alot about the man as actor, and human being, and about Hollywood in the Golden Age here.
   
   Like many Leading Men of the Golden Age there was a lot of There THERE in that pretty little head of his, in the performance of his craft, and in his personal life, and we are fortunate to have had him performing on screen into is old age.
   
   Fantastic!



5. This biography is a great find. McCabe is a magisterial writer - he analyzes his star like a specimen under the microscope - and as film-critic he is in a class by himself: a few well-chosen words, a picked-out scene, some psychoanalysis here, an anecdote there - you will SEE what he describes.
   
   The star of his book however is worth every trouble! In a profession that attracted so many elbow-people and phonies James Cagney remained unpretentious and helpful. His moral courage is legendary. He gave an ambulance to Americans who fought in Spain, supported the Mexican cotton worker's strike and the Scottsboro boys, was one of the founders of the SAG. No wonder he was a thorn in the sides of some people. They forced him to appear before the DIES committee. Gangsters planned to kill him...
   
   The actor was outrageously bright and original. THE PUBLIC ENEMY (1931) with the grapefruit - splash! - in Mae Clarke's face. His whining, begging-for-mercy death on the electric chair in ANGELS WITH DIRTY FACES (1938) and of course YANKEE DOODLE DANDY (1942), his quintessential role where he was literally dancing on the wall.
   
   Some fans are astonished that the average filmgoer remembers Cagney less well than say, Tracy or Bogart. He was forty-three-years old and at the zenith of his creative powers when he won his oscar. The audience idolized him. The following years should have been the best of his career, the years of harvest. They certainly were for Tracy (who worked with Hepburn) and Bogart (who worked with Bacall). Cagney's filmography before his sensational comeback as epileptic, mother-dominated gangster in WHITE HEAT (1949) However shows a gap. It was not only the war (he entertained troups in England). He was also tired of his "gangster-image" - and who could blame him? He left Warner Bros. with the declared intention to make "art".
   
   As a result he made just four films when he could have made twenty, two of them ambitious but costly Art-House films. JOHNNY COME LATELY (1943) raised eyebrows. THE TIME OF YOUR LIFE (1948) lost half a million dollars. He spent years paying back the banks, a task not made easier by the fact that his subsequent films were sabotaged by ignorance and malice in high places. COME FILL THE CUP (1951), the story of an alcoholic who is nursed back to health by an African-American friend could have been great. Producer Jack Warner insisted on a white actor and a gangster-story...Nearly everything good that Cagney made during those years landed on the cutting-room-floor...
   
   Insiders can probably appreciate the degree of his professional risk-taking - this is why artists, critics and film-buffs esteem him so highly - but the average filmgoer prefers stars with "legendary" affairs and reliable filmographies to a star who never caused a scandal and threw his career casually away for his art...They don't know what they're missing! Cagney kept to himself in private - painted, wrote poetry, sailed - and freezed his most agonizing emotions in his heart - no wonder, in view of the burden imposed on him early in life! (Cagney grew up in New York's "meaner" streets, with a father who was so sick from alcohol that he had fits. He worked from childhood and dropped out of college to help finance not only his mother and his little sister, but the college-education of his three brothers!). But he found a vent: His roles! Cagney's "real life" is not buried in the yellowed pages of old tabloids. It's right here, on screen! His performances are matchless in their immediacy, inventiveness and originality. No other star from the "golden era" is so "modern".
   
   Incredible, but this admirable biography alienated some readers. One reviewer was so disappointed that the actor failed to live up to his public image that he circulated trumped-up charges: That the actor was not a "real man" (People who think that crime is cool will consider Cagney a very unsatisfactory hero. A pity, since he is exactly the shining example they need). That he treated his children "like cattle" (What an idea! Since he could not have children of his own, he adopted two children from an orphanage. True, to lodge them in a separate house was odd, but he played with them, read to them, gave them valuable property. He was often absent, but his wife stayed at home. Should he have given up his job?). And his little slip with Merle Oberon! Take it easy - he was not the pursuer but the pursued, he said "no" late, but not too late...I liked him even more after reading this hilarious anecdote. He was a man of flesh & blood & virtue is easy when nobody comes (even the bible prefers remorseful sinners to hypocrites!).
   
   To discover James Cagney is like hitting the jackpot in the cineastic lottery. Every lover of classic films should have this book on his (or her) shelf. But you will become spoiled: It's lonely at the top...

5 comments about John Brown, Abolitionist: The Man Who Killed Slavery, Sparked the Civil War, and Seeded Civil Rights.

1. I was disappointed with portions of this book. But again, it was not written by a historian.
   In the first few chapters, Reynolds calls Harriet Beecher Stowe an adamant colonizationalist, without noting where the information came from. She did mention it in "Uncle Tom's Cabin," but stated afterward she was not supportive of it, although her father was.
   It is obvious he is very sympathetic to John Brown. But he did do a very good job of portraying John Brown as the family man he was. John Brown's letters supports this. John Brown was also for equal rights for African Americans and women. This is supported by his statements, letters, and other documents.
   But I would read other books, such as Stephen Oates, before I would use this one as reference.



2. Highly enjoyable read. Not written at arm's length; It's clear that Reynolds "gets" John Brown and the age he lived in, so his heart and imagination are fully engaged as he writes. He doesn't hide Brown's humanity however. What bothered me the most was that Brown seemed to harden his heart toward his wounded son at Harpers Ferry. (How it appeared to observers apparently.)
   
   All in all though Thoreau and Emerson got it right when they quickly came to his defense after Harpers Ferry. Thoreau compared Brown on the scaffold to Christ on the cross.
   
   If Brown had died at Harpers Ferry before the country could hear his defense and see the greatness of his character--his every word and behavior a challenge to the country to throw off the evils of slavery--history would no doubt have been different. Reynolds is redeeming Brown from neglect and misunderstanding to his rightful place as a heroic patriarch and patriot of America.
   
   In our age when "true believers" are highly suspect, Brown's character and long-contemplated actions shine as an example of exactly how and when a "fanatic" is not a fanatic. Brown founded a community where blacks and whites lived together as equals. He lived out his religious and political beliefs fully, whole-heartedly, yet included others of different beliefs in his inner circle (his first lieutenant was an atheist).
   
   I read mostly library books; this one I bought and buy for others.



3. David S. Reynolds background as a Professor of English Literature shows in this book: although focused on John Brown's life, you can see Professor Reynolds' interest in Mid 19th century literature on almost every page, with frequent and extensive discourses on John Browns' interactions-with and impact on many of the well known authors and orators of the day, such as Walt Whitman, Thoreau, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Melville, and Emily Dickinson.
   
   In general, Reynolds makes the argument that John Brown sparked the Civil War, and that he was a high minded, intensely religious man who was not as crazy, and not as violent, as history has led us to believe. He further argues that Brown was a man a century or more ahead of his time in terms of his attitudes towards racism, and foresaw where the war of words between the North and South over the future of slavery would inevitably lead.
   
   Reynolds does a great job of helping us better understand Brown as a person; and brings to light many facets of his personality and life of which I'd been unaware, such as Brown's total acceptance of African Americans as equals in every respect - a stance that few, if any, whites had at the time (and is a viewpoint that is not as widely accepted as it should be, even today). The author demonstrates, quite rightly, that most other abolitionists of the time were not so much pro-African-American as they were against slavery and its impact upon America. Many were at best dismissive, and at worst rabidly against, accepting blacks as equals.
   
   Reynolds comes across as an apologist for Brown, and seems to be attempting to justify some of Brown's bloodiest and most violent actions as merely being the unavoidable side effects of a man consumed with a passion against slavery. Those side effects included the deaths of several of his sons.
   
   The book's pace is not the best, and hits some really slow spots here and there: especially when it reaches the aftermath of the Harper Ferry raid, where the author launches into a very extensive discourse on the impact of John Brown (and his execution) on American literature, thought, society and politics - again with a focus on the writers and orators of the day. These last chapters could have been reduced in length by half or more, with little loss in terms of content.
   
   I question the author's repeated and strong emphasis on John Brown's strong Puritan faith as being a basis for his actions: this refrain starts to sound hollow after so many repetitions - as if he's hoping we'll get the message if he hits us with it enough times. As an inheritor of several centuries of that same Puritan tradition myself, many of his arguments concerning Brown's faith seem (at best) forced and overstated.
   
   Reynolds' argument that John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry was the spark that started the Civil War is also overstated: While I think the raid certainly contributed to the paranoia of the time, particularly in the South, Reynolds' arguments that John Brown's attack and behavior following the raid destroyed the South's reputation for chilvalric military prowess and invincibility is not believable. The war was inevitable: Brown's Raid on Harpers Ferry may have raised emotions, but the South was already diligently preparing for war by the time the raid occurred. The attack, at best, hurried things along a bit, but in my view, the country was almost certain to fall apart soon after the election of 1860, regardless of who won the Presidency.
   
   In the end, though with some significant flaws in terms of pacing, facts, and the arguments presented; this book is informative: it does bring out the nature of the man, and it helped me better appreciate his impact on the country and History. Dr. Reynolds' work especially helps us to understand Brown's impact upon many of the thought-leaders of the day, and how regional attitudes and cultural traditions played into the unfolding of events at the time and their impact on John Brown's own career and reputation during the trial, and in the years following his execution.
   
   To better understand how racism changed and evolved after the Civil War, I'd strongly recommend the book "Race and Reunion" by David W. Blight. For a better understanding of the four regional cultures in America at the time (Appalachian, Southern, New England and Mid Atlantic), which play a major role in Reynold's text, I'd recommend "Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America" by David Hackett Fischer.
   
   "John Brown, Abolitionist" is a book that is worth the read, though its flaws limit the impact that it could have made, given the strong personality that is its subject. I give it a positive, but limited, recommendation.



4. Overall this book does not contribute significantly to an understanding of John Brown and his times. The strength of the book is within Reynolds grasp of Browns personal character. Reynolds convincingly demonstrates that John Brown was not crazy, at least from a clinical perspective. Also important is the way the book shapes how Brown's Calvinist views affected his own worldview. However, Reynolds often times errors in his analysis through his overt affinity for Brown. For instance, Reynolds too often takes Brown at his word, such as on the limited nature of his Harper's Ferry raid despite the solid evidence suggesting otherwise. If one wanted to understand the life of John Brown a much better choice of book would be Stephen Oates' biography on Brown.
   
   As far as understanding Brown within the context of his time, this book hugely disappoints. Reynolds is not a historian and it shows (he is a professor of English). Even if we ignore the absurd contention that Brown had anything to do with the Civil Rights movement, there is plenty of reason to believe Brown had nothing more than a negligible effect on the coming of the Civil War.
   
   From an epistemological standpoint, Reynolds is contending a revisionist interpretation as the cause for the Civil War (a war that could have been avoided had it not been for extremists on both sides). The key difference is that while typically revisionists see the war as a tragic consequence of blundering politicians among the free soil and fire-eater persuasion, Reynolds puts all the blame (or praise in this case) on John Brown. This of course ignores the traditional interpretation that sees the conflict as irrepressible. However, both schools of thought agree that events leading to Civil War were well put in place prior to Brown's raid in 1859. The Missouri Compromise, acquisition of Western lands from the Mexican war, the Compromise (or `armistice') of 1850, Kansas Nebraska Act, bleeding Kansas, the Dred Scott decision, and the Lecompton dispute, all significantly call into question Reynold's assertion that sectional hostilities were relatively tranquil prior to John Brown's raid. Perhaps one of Reynold's biggest blunders was emphasizing the significance of the abolitionist movement in the coming of the Civil War while completely ignoring the emergence of the much more significant free-soil Republican Party.
   
   While the book does a relatively decent job of presenting Brown as a person, Stephen Oates remains the Brown standard bearer. As for the larger picture, Reynolds demonstrates a dismal understanding of antebellum politics.



5. I expected Reynolds to write fluidly and clearly but he does not. The book turned out to be about two hundred pages too long. There aren't normal notes and many times I checked for them when I wanted to check a claim and found no note. His insensitivity to the role of Calvinism in Brown makes him overgeneralize claims and misidentify Brown as simply a Puritan. The book is marred by stylistic flaws that frustrate the reader and make the read an arduous one. In the end, it makes for an interesting even if one that makes the reader frustrated at the storyteller.

5 comments about Last Man Down: A New York City Fire Chief and the Collapse of the World.

1. Number one fact: Picciotto probably sensed the opportunity to make a few extra bucks from his ordeal in September 11, and seized the opportunity.
   
   Number two fact: It's strange to NOT like a book about September 1, but I did not like this book at all. Not because of the selfish and auto-congrulatory mode, but due to the literally (or lack of) characteristcis of the book. I think it's badly written, even with Mr. Paisner at the helm.
   
   As for Picciotto actions those days, only people under that kind of stresssful situation could know how they would have acted... Generally, I think he did the best he could for his city and for his companions and for the civilians he encountered.
   
   For all his detractors, I put the question: if he had died along with the shocking number of victims, even with all his "faults" he would have benn considered a hero, ego or no ego involved. Am I right?



2. I had wanted to read this book for a while, so I purchased it. Richard Picciotto is not the best writer, but he does give you a sense of what it was like to be under pressure and trying to survive the tower collapse. He doesn't pull punches as to who he blames for the loss of firefighters that day. Lack of adequate equipment, department cuts, etc. I think to a certain extent he has a valid point, but I also know that there were many other factors involved as well. Mr. Picciotto's focus is understandably on his personal experience and his emotions around what happened that day. I am glad that I read it, but I have to be honest and say it is what it is. Mr. Picciotto will probably not win a Pulitzer, but he calls it as he sees it and he was there and I wasn't.



3. I just recently read the paperback version of this book. The first half of this book is pretty interesting and heart pounding in detailing what it was like to be in the World Trade Center while it collapsed. The second half was very disatisfying. It was very self-serving and is mostly about Mr. Picciotto praising himself and his actions and criticizing absolutely everyone else. I also find it interesting that Mr. Picciotto said how hard it was for him to return to the site and that it took him a very long time do this. However, in the acknowledgment at the end of the book, he returns barely a few weeks after the collapse and with his collaborator of this book. He had already found the time to get a book deal and co-author!



4. As a firfigther who understands chain of command and the need to work with in an Incident Command System, this book perfectly explains how one FDNY Battalion Chief breaks all the rules, chosing to respond to the World Trade Center Disaster rather than remain responsible for his own Battalion, risks the lives of members of 110Truck to "sprint" to the 35th floor of the North Tower, ABANDONING them on the way to freelance some more in the burning tower, only to ultimately become stuck in the collapse of the North Tower where he goes on to shout at and berade a PAPD Officer who's lost his partner, a K9, to the collapse of the bulidng. This book is a shameful and embarrasing for all American firefighters, those silent heros who risk their lives daily.



5. I have had this book for a few years but have not been able to read it till recently.The story is quite interesting and astonishing (especially as it is a true story) but the writing is somewhat repetetive - I think this is done to make the story longer - and the Firefighter seems to be too full of himself always going on how great he is and how well he did what a good leader he is ...... and so on.Entertaining and interesting but the way the story is written spoils it.

5 comments about Citizen McCain.

1. As the 2008 election season ripens, this six-year old "classic" will give you an extra interesting angle on one of the presidential candidates, and maybe future President of the US. No matter what, this work's popularity will increase shortly, then drop off sharply after January, 2009!
   
   The interesting angle comes from Elizabeth Drew, a columnist, pundit, and traveler-with author. Not everyone will like this kind of story, a sort of short-interval biography, or an informal/insider diary of trials and travels with a famous Senator. Nevertheless, it is a good tale showing in some detail what a national legislator must do to get his bills passed. In this case, of course, the legislation centers around campaign financing, resulting eventually in the McCain-Feingold law. One is also left marveling how anything much gets passed through Congress in the first place.
   
   Clearly, the author liked John McCain, and liked following the thread of the Senator's political life, as well as schmoozing in the company of the Senate's most famous maverick. She astutely points out, though, that an effective legislator has to get real business done, and McCain showed often how he was not a wild-shooting, alienating maverick. Given the author's usual philosophical tendencies, one also wonders what she will be thinking as the '08 campaign winds along. One bet might be that she will be "all kinds of sorry" she wrote such a glowing, pal-sy book back then!



2. I have to agree with one of the previous reviewers and say that there is too much admiration in this book for Senator McCain. However after saying that, it took guts to take on the leadership of his party to propose campaign finance reform. McCain did it for the best of reasons--because it will make our republic more democratic, and not beholden (as much) to money. For that reason along, I also have a lot of admiration for the Senator from Arizona.
   
   Even though the author shows her bias, this is a nice story about how the forces of politics works in our nation's capital. Introduction of a key piece of legislation requires diplomacy, conviction, and working with disparite groups. Senator McCain should be congratulated for his efforts in getting this legislation passed.



3. Always original and always unabashedly candid, John McCain has won over many fans in the realm of politics - as well as his fair share of enemies. Whenever I hear McCain is to appear on Hannity & Colmes or another show, I make it a point to tune in - because I know something provocative - and possibly something controversial, may be said. That's what sets McCain apart from the politically correct force-fed politicians of today - he refuses to rigidly adhere to the strident dogma of party lines. McCain, instead, subscribes to his own agenda - one of morality, reform, and good old-fashioned honesty.

   While Elizabeth Drew primarily delineates McCain's co-authored monumental McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Bill throughout the book, she all the while allows us to delve into the innerworkings of the McCain office and his devoted staff. While others in his own party(and those outside as well) bash him and label him as being bitter towards Bush as to why he didn't back the President's tax cuts, McCain proves that he, above all, is a man of principle, not party line. True American patriots like John McCain are few and far between. As SC Senator Lindsey Graham says, "The thing about John McCain is that if you ever get to be his friend, he'll be with you thick and thin. There ain't a lot of that up here."




4. I just finished this book, and I really don't see any point at all. This book was just a meandering tale with McCain at the center, shedding no light on him as a private or public figure. I have to point out that I like McCain as a character and I was hoping to learn more about him as a politician. Articles that I have read in magazines lately are much more informative. Read the excerpt and if you are not hooked, do not expect the writing to improve.



5. John McCain is the new Don Quixote of American politics -- honest, decent, committed and innocent; a political virgin in a pleasure dome where most of the residents are dedicated to pleasing the big spenders.

   He's an adopted Arizonan, probably more because of his wife than any other cause, but he's the perfect impratical heir to a long tradition of Arizona idealists who flopped magnificently on their own but set a grand stage for others. Think of Barry Goldwater, or Stu and Mo Udall, as the epitome of political idealism and the graveyard of personal achievement.

   In a nation based on the idea that errors of opinion may be safely tolerated where reason is left free to combat them, McCain poses as a champion of restricting open political debate. Ironically, his McCain-Feingold bill to ban soft money in politics contained a neon sign pointing the easy way to simple evasion, allowing "unaffiliated" campaign committees to raise the same money from the same influence peddlers to achieve the same results.

   Political limits have been sought for hundreds of years; in America, some of the first limits were ending the free whiskey for one's supporters on election day. Teddy Roosevelt banned corporate donations in 1907, and McCain is merely the latest but surely not the last in a long line of distinguished opponents of political influence peddling.

   Drew, an excellent reporter, does a masterful job in detailing the long intrigues that bedevil all legislation. She has a good knowledge of the legislative process, and her this alone her book is a revealing insight into just what goes into the making of our laws.

   The sad part, of course, is that McCain's efforts are meaningless. Money pours into politics for one simple reason -- donations buy favorable results for donors. People rarely give to politicians to improve the community; it's a pity McCain didn't learn this as a charter member of the Keating 8. If donors were really interested in good government, they'd buy snowplows for Washington. D.C., rather than giving "soft" or "hard" to politicians.

   McCain is a maverick, as gutsy in politics as his grandfather was as an admiral in the Pacific in World War II. Like Goldwater, like his grandfather, John is totally authentic (okay, I've known McCain since his first campaign in 1982). Like Goldwater, his success may not be measured in immediate results; but, look for McCain's name to sound long and true if the campaign to make politics more open, honest, candid and accessible to everyone someday achieves positive results.

   This is why Drew is worth reading; granted, she's wrapped up in campaign finance reform, but she touches some undercurrents in modern society that McCain has tapped. Like Don Quixote, McCain's aim is true; unlike Quixote, McCain's efforts may may pay off in another 20 or 30 years with a birth of new honesty in politics.

   McCain is a masterful politician, and Drew nicely captures these skills. He is genuinely committed to public service for the public good; before his first campaign, he talked to a wide range of Arizonans about a potential role in state politics. His first thought was to run for the legislature; when a Congressional seat opened up, he seized the opportunity and won a close but significant victory in a state where the largest newspaper open favored conservative Republicans.

   Like his grandfather, John McCain III knows how to seize opportunity when it arises. Many politicians are 90 percent show and 10 percent candor; McCain is the opposite, and it is this honesty which Drew so nicely portrays that has made him into yet another national figure from Arizona.

5 comments about Walt Disney: The Triumph of the American Imagination.

1. An absolute must-read for not just any Disney enthusiast, but anyone interested in the history of American pop culture in general. Gabler's effort to gather the most comprehensive research on the man behind the mouse is evident throughout, but even more important is his ability to weave that research into a page-turner of a tale which parallels the themes of the Disney features themselves, most importantly struggle against adversity, good versus evil, and the glory of success versus the misery of failure.
   
   Enlightening, invigorating, and inspirational. A pleasure to read.



2. I have read all of the most popular biographies of Walt. By far, this is the best. The best researched, the best written, the deepest, the most fair and unbiased of all of them. It won the LA Times Book Award and it definitely deserved it. I think one of the best qualities of this book is how Gabler treats Walt as a human being, with all our faults, but one that had great talent who found that success did not necessarily bring happiness nor the "Magic Kingdom" which he longed for in his mind since a child.



3. For one of the 20th century's more mythologized figures, it appears Walt Disney made for an easier character study than one might have expected. Given how his movies are known for watering down some very graphic tales, perhaps it shouldn't come as a surprise that Disney was the salt-of-the-earth daydreamer Gabler portrays. Gabler's take on the man and his life's work sometimes veers a bit into self-parody territory, as the unpretentious Midwesterner who was so unpretentious he loved polo and so Midwestern he chose to live in California when he could have lived anywhere, and Gabler doesn't seem to see any contradiction. But still, there's no reason to doubt Gabler is accurate in his portrayal of a man who built an empire on his longing for a mythical small-town paradise.
   
   Speaking of accuracy, Gabler expertly knocks down a number of myths about Disney, most notably the belief that he was cryogenically frozen when he died, and sheds light on controversial issues such as Disney's purported anti-Semitism. Which makes it all the more maddening when Gabler inadvertenly repeats the misleading-at-best claim that Disney wore a Goldwater-for-president button on his lapel when he accepted his Presidential Medal of Freedom from President Johnson in 1964. While probably not completely false, that story has been blown wildly out of proportion and deserves far more scrutiny than Gabler gives it. (He mentions the incident only in passing, leaving unchallenged the definitely-false impression that it was a large and prominently displayed button.)
   
   Gabler's research is undeniably impressive, and his vision of Disney is remarkably consistent across the different stages of his life. This inadvertently leads to my one serious criticism of the book: sometimes Gabler is TOO thorough, and there are lengthy stretches that simply aren't very interesting. That's an occupational hazard for biographers, and some are better at overcoming it than others. The ending is also a bit abrupt, with no information to speak of on what became of Disney's family, close friends, and the workings of his company in the aftermath of his death. After all those hundreds of pages, we feel like we know them, and it's a bit frustrating to be left with no epilogue at all.
   
   Still, overall, this is a very impressive source on a subject that was very much in need of a definitive record.



4. Simply amazing book. The depth of research and objective look into WD's personality is an awesome feat. The willingness to set aside the national collective notion of who and what Disney is and let the facts speak for themselves is refreshing when delving into the world of Disney. So much of the copious copy on the man and the World that is recycled in numerous books, simply supports and fuels the myth that has endured. Gabler's book minutely documents how the mythological force of Walt Disney came to be in the first place.
   
   It's a long book (I felt accomplished to have read the whole thing) but there is so much research done- with primary sources that every page is packed and dense with information. I never felt the text to ramble on.
   
   Gabler didn't shy away from the touchy subject of whether Walt was a good guy or bad guy and simply presents the human who was Walt Disney. That said, I would have liked to see a little bit more information on Gunther Lessing. It seems as if the lawyer was extremely influential on Disney yet only mentioned in passing in the book.
   
   It would be great to see an equal book to this chronicling the history of the Disney company after Walt's death to the present.



5. When I saw this book in my local library and saw that there were 26 CDs, I thought, "This better be a good book!" I did not want to be bored to death by someone droning on about Walt Disney. I was not let down. It fulfilled my image of Walt Disney and gave tremendous insights into his life and quest to achieve perfection.
   
   I was very impressed and enjoyed the book a great deal. I am an attorney by trade and a study of successful people by hobby. I have read numerous biographies and consider this one of my favorites. There were times I laughed out loud and, by the time I reached the 25th CD, I cried with his family at his death. It was an excellent read and the 26 CDs go quickly!

5 comments about I May Not Get There with You: The True Martin Luther King, Jr.

1. I find it very refreshing when a product of multiculturalism throws a wrench in the system and violently turns against his masters. In this provocative (though unsurprisingly silenced) work of pop scholarship college diversity program poster-child and hip hop "expert" Eric Dyson sets to work on deconstructing the white-washed image of Martin Luther King, Jr. that the American left has successfully promoted without opposition for the past four decades.
   
   But wait a minute, Martin Luther King Jr. was an American patriot, someone who was deeply devoted to the ideals of its Founding Fathers and simply wanted to tinker with a few of the more archaic aspects of American society (Jim Crow) so that everyone could at least have a fair shot at the American Dream. I must admit that up until a few months ago I was captured (more like poisoned) by this ridiculous myth, probably more so than most even. The story of King's life seemed so inspiring, who wouldn't want to believe in it?
   
   Turns out pretty much everything taught about MLK in public schools are at best half truths and all of the most hideous aspects of his life go completely unmentioned. As Dyson tells us, the truly radical aspects of King's ideology - such as his close association with the American Communist Party - are silenced specifically to keep African Americans in check. Undoubtedly, but these facts are suppressed specifically to keep suspicious whites in a state of unthinking, unquestioning silence as much as anyone else. Dyson didn't have to dig very much to uncover this information, even King's closest associates and biggest financial backers were Communists.
   
   Dyson also quotes some of King's most damaging speeches and interviews on economics that leave little doubt about what King's larger social and economic objectives actually were. "Oh, gee willickers!," the multiculturalist will scream, tearing the hair from his head, "You've got it all wrong - King only promoted the positive aspects of Communism." Well that all depends on just what you think the "positive" aspects of Communism really are. Let's see, King patently endorsed the redistribution of wealth, destruction of the military, labor's seizure of private business, abolition of private property...oh but don't worry, no Gulags!
   
   Predictably the trail of putrid scandal doesn't end there. In what has become a recurring theme amongst American leftists King possessed a voracious and positively uncontrollable appetite for cheap prostitutes. The point in mentioning this type of degenerate behavior at all is so Dyson can tie King's participation in the Civil Rights movement to the anti-objectivity counter-revolution that occurred subsequently thereafter. Here as well King was quite an active critic of the military (not JUST Vietnam), did interviews with pornographic magazines, generally did everything in his power to undermine sensible restraints wherever they existed, and ensured that a whole generation was indoctrinated into loving themselves and living for themselves only. Most important in all of these activities by King were the rumblings of what would later become known as "Affirmative Action."
   
   Dyson of course supports this development unconditionally and who could blame him, he is where he is precisely because King and his predecessors (backed by the Federal Government) were able to intimidate employers, agencies, and universities into adopting certain "hiring policies" favorable to African Americans. Noticably missing however in this book is elaboration on King's despicable intellectual dishonesty and theft (60% of his doctoral thesis at Boston University was stolen from another student) of other people's work throughout the entirety of his career.
   
   The story of "Dr." King is not an entirely uncommon one for political figures and needless to say his story is hardly inspiring. Indeed, it's typical even for the most violent political leaders to take a relatively egalitarian approach in the beginning, only to shed this facade once they start gathering steam in favor of uncompromising authoritarianism. Vladimir Lenin was an outspoken critic of the Czar and railed against the regime for its suppression of political speech, exploitation of the working class, and persecution of ethnic and religious minorities. Well, we all know how that turned out. I seriously doubt that Martin Luther King, Jr. was any different. Just as another reviewer pointed out, if he were alive today I'm sure he'd be right there with Al Sharpton and Jesse falsely accusing random college students of rape, petitioning to get O.J. Simpson reduced bail, and doing anything he possibly could to exacerbate whatever racial tensions still exist in this country.
   
   Why Dyson thinks this new version of King is great for black folks is anyone's guess, frankly I don't care. I'm just glad I don't have to listen to this hippy nonsense anymore and for that I am thankful.



2. I agree with Dr. King's message of harmony and peace. At the same time I can appreciate Dyson's exposure of aspects of King's personal life that most authors do not address (an obvious exception is "And the Walls Came Tumbling Down"). In a very real sense it leads to questioning Dr. King's sincerity in asking others to value the character of a person and not the color of their skin. Dr. King was an admirable figure in American history; I wouldn't go as far as the author in saying he might be the most important American ever; that's a bit over the top. I've read a lot on the subject; this book is worth reading.



3. I have always been fascinated with Dr. King as one of the most influential leaders of the 20th century. I love the work that Dr. Dyson did in writing this book, because he is authentic in talking about Dr. King the man - strengths, weaknesses and all - while exposing the myths about him. Being African-American, I can understand why many within our community woud want to scold Dr. Dyson for exposing Dr. King's dirty laundry. I, however, consider it not only essential, but relevant that we talk about the true humanity of our leaders (espcially one as esteemed as Dr. King) to avoid the danger of us elevating them as idols. It is a great reminder that God uses people (albeit flawed people) for magnificent works in a fallen world. This is a great book that I highly recommed!!



4. I picked up this book expecting a fresh approach and analysis of Dr. King apart from the obligatory images we're force-fed each new year. Instead, I was disappointed to find that Michael Eric Dyson made heavy use of speculation with the intent to scandalize more than to inform and enlighten. One such example includes Dyson conveying the idea that Dr. King may have engaged in orgies with many different women along with his right-hand man Ralph Abernathy. He then goes on to infer that there was talk of King and Abernathy engaging in sexual acts with each other! The author had no commentary to either support or dispel this "theory" making Dyson's retelling of the alleged incident totally irresponsible and even libelous. He just dropped the information, true or untrue, in the reader's lap to do with as the reader pleased. To that end, it is my opinion that Dyson's intent in writing this book was in no way honorable or truth-seeking, rather it was a means to convey his baseless ideas to anyone who would listen. I'm reminded of something my grandmother and mother would always say to me, "an empty wagon makes the loudest noise." Michael Eric Dyson makes a lot of noise in this book but totally lacks substance. This was an expensive tabloid.



5. This book was not what I expected, but enjoyed regardless. I particularly liked his idea of banning the 'I Have a Dream' speech from public media. The stories about his philandering were a bit shocking to me, but I have never read any biography of King before, so I wasn't prepared. The ocassional tangents might irk some, but understand Dyson has to take some risks and expand on ideas to make the book worth his time. Realize the civil right movement is not over. Dialogue needs to continue in written forms such as this book to make progress.
   - logan square yuppie

2 comments about Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass An American Slave (Barnes & Noble Classics Series) (Barnes & Noble Classics).

1. It's simply amazing that a man such as Frederick Douglass could rise up from the bowels of slavery and make such an impact on American history. And the fact that he allegedly educated himself and became an outspoken leader/advocate in the abolitionist movement, while becoming one of the leading intellectuals in the 19th century would indeed be miraculous if it didn't seem so fallacious.
   
   But what I'm about to state will disturb many people, and for that I'm deeply sorry. However, I feel Douglass' autobiography and how he managed to educate himself with little or no help then escaping to freedom is unmitigated hyperbole.
   Also, the fact that Douglass downplays Harriet Tubman's Underground Rail Road as something unfeasible and the fact that Douglass doesn't reveal any information on how he escaped made this book seem extremely far-fetched if not fanciful.
   Unfortunately, this narrative seems like a work of fiction that was written by a 19th century white person trying to capture the essence of the black experience. (In other words this narrative would make a pretty good TV movie of the week.)
   
   And Of course, many people will make the accusation that what I'm conveying are racist sentiments, but that simply isn't the case. There were an abundance of capable Blacks in the 19th century that could and did accomplish what Douglass achieved ten-fold.
   So, with that said, I emphatically feel that he should've been professional and intellectually forthright with his tale. It would have been intriguing to envisage his perilous journey to freedom.
   By leaving the readers in utter limbo on how he made his trek to freedom when he simply could have given realistic details of what transpired during his escape without revealing accomplices would have made his story more palatable.
   
   But overall, what I think everyone should ascertain from this autobiography is the iniquitous brutality of slavery and the impact it had on America as a society then and now, and we must all muster enough strength to love and respect one-another so someday we'll overcome adversities in our sacred land.
   So to sum up; even though I found this book far-fetched at times I still consider Frederick Douglass to be one of the greatest Americans of all time.
   A must read for the learning experience insofar as reaching understanding even though this autobiography reads like a work of fiction.



2. Frederick Douglass wrote this while still a relatively young man, recently escaped from slavery. He is extremely articulate; especially for someone self-educated. This is the story of his life as a slave up until the time he escaped and became an abolitionist. He later wrote a couple of other autobiographies, but this is the one that packs the most wallop.
   
   His observations of the degrading effects on slavery, both on the slaves and the owners were very fascinating. His description of the change he saw in one of his mistresses from a kindly new slaveholder to a typical cruel slave owner highlighted what evil an institution slavery is. It made me grateful not only that I'm not a slave, but more so not a slaveholder.
   
   It was also interesting to see how his religious masters were much crueler than the non-religious owners were. It shows how if a "moral" institution justifies an immoral practice, its practitioners lose all sense of guilt and act accordingly.
   
   The methods the owners used to keep the slaves ignorant and debased was another disgusting practice. It seemed to work at keeping them from revolt, but at what cost?
   
   I highly recommend this book for everyone. The lessons it teaches about human nature are things we all need to be reminded of.

5 comments about American Legacy: The Story of John and Caroline Kennedy.

1. So much has been written about the Kennedys that it's getting a little ridiculous. I guess they make lots of money for the writers who keep rehashing the same old stories. Will this country EVER get over the Kennedys?! Geez, give it a rest.



2. I'm answering my own question by saying, "I don't know." I certainly enjoyed the time I spent on this book. I admired Jackie's dedication to her children, and to teaching them how to deal with their with their legacy. It was neat to see each sibling's unique personality unfold. But I'm not sure if I enjoyed it because John and Caroline are such compelling figures, or because Heyman did a good job. He waffles so much -- in the Schlossberg marriage, either Ed or Caroline is aloof, and either Ed or Caroline is friendly. Carolyn Bessette was either highly demonstrative, or she wasn't. And the passages about JFK Jr's sexual experimentation (which either did or didn't happen) seemed to come out of left field. So while I enjoyed this book, I can't honestly recommend it.



3. 
   the Billy Way interview about John & Carolyn's marriage let me
   
   question everything. Billy Way died eleven years ago.



4. C. David Heymann, John Hankey.
   Both have written about JFK Jr. Now why has Heymann's item come out now? So soon after Hankey's? After so many words written about the Kennedy's?
   
   Perhaps for the same reason Gerald Posner wrote "Case Closed", assuring us that JFK Sr. was killed by LHO, and nobody else? Heymann wants this case closed, too. Good and closed. He'll accuse the quite responsible JFK Jr. of abusing alcohol, as well as being a bad pilot, if that is what it takes.
   
   John Hankey's DVD, The Assassination of JFK Jr. was promoted on Amazon with the following words I couldn't express better, "Overwhelming, jaw-dropping evidence of foul play in the death of John Kennedy Jr., all based on official government documents:"
   
   Heymann barks on cue. Why the heavy handed affirmation of John Jr.'s culpability in the downing of his plane? Even bringing up "alcohol" something no one else has done? This author is some sort of friend? The testimony is very strong that irresponsible behavior was uncharacteristic of John (no--I'm no JFK Jr. fan; I just hate liars and smearers). Publishing companies are carefully chosen by the powers of today, and then they choose their authors carefully. Posner admitted he wrote "Case Closed" because that was the point of view desired by the publishing company who hired him.
   From all accounts, John Jr. was extremely careful, never flew without a flight instructor, and had let the FAA know his plane was approaching. When it did not land in a few minutes, the FAA was bound by law to IMMEDIATELY start a search. They did not do so for an incredible 15 HOURS. Even the Kennedy family could not get them to search until they finally placed a call to the Coast Guard who then called the FAA, who then directed a search many miles away from where the plane went down...
   and that, boys and girls, is only the beginning and it's all on record. As usual, they trust that the public will be a: indifferent, b: forgetful of original news reports, c: gullible, d: fearful of repercussions should they question the officially sanctioned story.
   Even a hard-boiled detective would jerk up and take notice; yet a supposed "sympathetic biographer", Heymann, ignores this glaring misdeed and even invents (?) a new fault for John Jr. of which, he speculates, the departed one may be guilty. How low can we go? The past few years have been instructive on that question, in many different areas of public discourse. But back to John Jr.
   Beware anything Heymann writes. As far as his hauling out the many stories we already know, the only reason this man wrote this book is to get the bloodhounds away from the culprits, who are very, very powerful.
   
   Oh that word, that word--conspiracy--that word which means to "breath together". Dear readers, do you really think there are no plotters of coups and murders who do not "breath together"? JFK Jr. was never the brainiest, but, hey, with what we've got in the Office now, brains are not what it takes. JFK Jr. could have beaten hands down, anyone they put against him. Can't have that, when you're getting ready to do the great take over. Smart or average, JFK Jr. wanted to get to the bottom of certain political crimes, and had published in his magazine, an interview with the mother of the man who killed Rabin in 1995. She said her son was a "manuchurian candidate" and the assassination had been allowed to happen--an inside job, so to speak. JFK Jr. also wanted to get to the bottom of who killed his father. And they couldn't have that, could they?
   btw, check out Hankey on the JFK Sr. murder.



5. this was five hundred pages or so of more than i ever wanted to know about the kennedy family. in my humble opinion, they talked that poor family to death. no one can come out looking good under that kind of scrutiny.