5 comments about Front Row at the White House : My Life and Times.

1. The book is a true reflection of who Helen is and her commitment to the ideals and responsibility of being a "reporter". Whether or not you agree with Helen's political views; it is hard to argue with her views regardig the responsibility of the press corps.



2. If you've ever wondered about the woman who for years asked the first question at presidential news conferences and also ended each one, then this memoir will be entertaining. Thomas had a long career and got to know every president since JFK pretty well, or so you'd think from this book which is chock full of interesting anecdotes and opinions. It is a bit repetitious and would have benefited mightily from tighter editing. One wonders if the publisher was a little too reverential to use the red pencil. Somewhere along the line, UPI, her employer, lost a lot of its power and impact, due to business turmoil. Still, Thomas soldiered on. She doesn't say much about UPI in the memoir, probably because she's still working, though for Hearst. If you follow the journalism biz, you'll want to read this one.



3. I liked doing business with them. The book came in very good packaging. I plan on doing more business with them in the future. Keep up the good work!!!



4. I never noticed Thomas much until I saw her bit on Steven Colbert's famous slap in Bush's face at the White House Pres Corps dinner. I started reading more about her and listened to her on many different shows. I respect her a great deal, so was very interested in this book.
   
   Much of it is about her. Too much really. There is also way too much name dropping as well as anecdotes about her and her cronnies that were frankly rather boring. She aslo is rather contradictory. She prides herself on her journalistic integrity but doesn't understand why someone like Lady Bird would have been furious over her leaks about her daughters. She makes a big deal of her front row seat and on the many compliments and accolades that the various presidents bestowed on her. Such things got in the way of what really was an excellent look at the administrations that she worked with.
   
   However, it was in her chapters on Marha Mitchell, and the first ladies, that really make this book a gem. The former esp - we were always told by the administration that she was insane. She wasn't - she was speaking the truth about watergate, and no one wanted to listen. And for the most part does a good job outlining each administration's successes and faults.
   
   However, She was also far from being unbiased. Kennedy was the only democratic president who she had good things to say about. To hear her talk, Clinton's lies were much worse than Watergate or Contragate. She pretty much gave Nixon and Reagan a free pass, but spent pages ranting about Clinton. I don't expect someone working so long to not have opinions but for heavens sake try to put things into perspective.
   
   Since this book was written just at the end of Clinton's term, and since I know that her opinion of Bush Jr is less than stellar, I'd be interested in reading her more current book which talks about his administration. I wonder if she now sees Clinton with perhaps less myopic eyes?



5. I respect Helen Thomas for her fearlessness, tenacity, and the fact that she broke so much ground as a woman in the WH Press Corp. However, as other reviewers have noted, this book didn't have the bite of her questions at a press conference.
   
   I'm glad I read this book - parts were very interesting. Her insights into individual Presidents and First Ladies, the way they viewed the press, and the insidious transition from communications to spin and handling. She also takes the press to task for buying into this.
   
   The book is kinda wonky, and if you aren't a press junky, it wouldn't mean much. I didn't know there was so much to know about Air Force One - and even after reading it, was numb.
   
   Reading this book made me think that I had Helen Thomas at a loooong Saturday afternoon brunch, and she had begun holding forth. Fascinating premise. But after a while, you'd want a break - take a walk, see if they brought out more shrimp, maybe check the Blackberry. After a while (or maybe 30 pages), it would be irresistable to go back and see what she was saying now. You'd be rivited for a while, then your eyes would start to glaze over, and it's time to see if they have FINALLY brought out more shrimp. After everyone has had three glasses of wine, you're in a mellower mood to listen, and she's in a crazier mood to talk, so it all works out just fine.

5 comments about Washington: The Indispensable Man.

1. This just isn't sufficiently accurate nor well-written given its hype and other ratings here. One example is at page 13, where Flexner describes young Washington's trip to a French fort at the confluence of French Creek with the Monongahela ("now Franklin, Pennsylvania"). The problem is that French Creek flows into the Allegheny, not the Monongahela.
   Another problem occurs when he describes (p. 24) how Washington accompanied General Braddock at the disastrous defeat at Turtle Creek in July 1755. Of course, Washington was 23 in July 1755, having been born in February 22 (Feb 11 by the old calendar), 1732. In the next chapter, he describes how after Braddock's defeat the British Army left Virginia defenseless, so the Virginia Assembly created its own army, and Washington "now twenty-two" was elected colonel (page 28).
   In an early battle of the Revolutionary War he describes how Washington held a strong position at White Plains, NY, but was outflanked and decided to move to higher hills near New Castle. Although New Castle, NY and North Castle, NY are close geographically, the hills in question are in North Castle.
   The book is also written in an annoying manner, using words (not quoted) like "unwisdom" and "plaguey." The writing seems at the level of a sophomore term paper. There have to be better one-volume biographies.



2. As a student for some reason I have never been able to focus on the founding fathers. I have read an assortment of biographies of Revolutionary-era politicians and military leaders and always emerge with only the faintest understanding of who these men were and what the different issues were being debated in the 1780's and 1790's. This book is the first one I've read from this period that really held my attention. Too bad I didn't have it on hand when I took my first class in American history but perhaps it might come in handy somewhere down the educational road.



3. This book is a "distillation" of the author's award winning four-volume biography of Washington. "The extreme reduction of scale - to about one fifth - dictated that, if the shorter work were to have its own integrity and literary effect, the material would have to be revisualized and rewritten. Except for the account of Washington's death, the text is almost altogether new." (viii)
   
   The literary style is excellent. The narrative, however, stays so close to Washington that the historical context of his life is often only hinted at, and at times left out entirely. The chapters are, in almost every case, less than ten pages long. The book reads, with exceptions, like a series of extended, well polished essays written from selected notes compiled for a longer work - which I suppose is exactly what it is.



4. This is an excellent book. It is well written and very informative. Not having read all of the single volume biographies of Washington, I cannot testify to its being the very best, but surly it must be one of the best. The book is Flexner's single volume abridgement of his four-volume biography. Being only one quarter the size of the complete work it cannot be as detailed, but it nonetheless provides a very coherent and compelling portrait. Perhaps the best accolade that I can give is that I now I want to know more and I am considering reading the complete Flexner series. As might be expected from the subtitle "The Indispensable Man" the book paints the most favorable picture possible and shows why Washington was indeed the "Indispensable Man". He was indispensable not only as the leader of the army but also as America's first president. His firm hand set many of the precedents that shaped the office of president.
   
   While Washington is shown in the most favorable light the same cannot be said of Jefferson and Hamilton. Both (but mostly Jefferson) are shown to be more loyal to their party (the Federalists in the case of Hamilton and the Republicans in the case of Jefferson) than to Washington. Confidences were betrayed, especially by Jefferson. If there was a villain in this story it was Jefferson, who is painted as one who was willing to bring on war with Britain in order to support France and to further his vision of an agrarian America.
   
   One word of caution - this book is not a military history of the American Revolution, or of the detailed causes of the revolution, the writing of the constitution or the complete history of Washington's presidency. All of these things are covered, but not in the detail provided in books devoted specifically to these subjects.



5. This is one of the better books I have read on the life of an American President. Thorough, but written in a flowing, easy to read style. I would highly recommend this book.

5 comments about Mr Tompkins in Paperback (Canto imprint) (containing Mr. Tompkins in Wonderland and Mr. Tompkins Explores the Atom).

1. A lovely reprinted edition of a peral from Gamow. The original edition has been out of print for a number of years. This 1993 edition has added commentary and a fascinating bio of Gamow. He was born in Odessa, in what was then Russia, --before the Soviet Union. The story of his escape to the West is straight out of a thriller. Only it is real! Gamow was referred to by a journalist, some time during the Cold War, as "the only scientist in America with a real sense of humor". He can take the most technical stuff and make it simple. Fun too! The book:--Intellectual treats, whimsy, but deep. Illustrated with lovely drawings by Gamow himself. Much of it can be understood by a child, and other parts might require a little concentration. All of it is great fun. Follow your imagination, and while you explore, you will learn about Einstein's theory of relativity. And in unexpected ways! You will see the wonders of physics thru the eyes of a child. With his unexpected thought experiments, Gamow has captured the imagination of generations of readers, and he has inspired a degree of curiosity that comes naturally to children.
   The author George Gamow started in nuclear physics, during the Golden Age of Physics, worked with Niels Bohr in Copenhagen, then later in the US, on the Manhattan Project during WWII; and after the War, he was professor in Boulder Colorado. He has a building on campus of The University of Colorado named after him! He is one of the few scientists who wrote popular books. They are precious pearls, and they have been equally popular with my parent's generation as with mine. For awhile they were out of print, but luckely some have now been reprinted in recent years!
   Other Gamow titles: Biography of Physics, Atomic Energy [dedicated to the hope of lasting peace], Physics of the Strapless Evning Gown,...We are lucky that Dover has reprinted some of them. Gamow's list of scientific accomplishments includes a 1948 landmark paper on the origin of chemical elements, the Big Bang model, and later work with F. Crick on DNA and genetic coding.-- Do more Gamow editions, Dover!
   Review by Palle Jorgensen, September 2003.



2. I'm a novice at this subject matter, and I've recently started reading introductory books on quantum physics for fun. I read, "The New Quantum Universe" prior to reading this. This easy to read book filled in some gaps that that I had. It helped me grasp some concepts that had otherwise passed over my head when reading the other book.

   I understand that this is a classic text and I can see why. It's fun to read, and provides a foundation for further understanding. It explains uncertaintity, radioactive decay, and electron shells especially well.

   I may not fully appreciate the concepts I was able to internalize from this book for quite some time. I can say that I strongly recommend it to the layman or anyone who's eager to understand some basics of this incredible field of study.




3. Here are Gamow's two 1940's Mr Tompkins books popularizing modern physics, in one tidy package. An earlier reviewer has suggested that this book be produced as an animated educational film, a good idea, but I picture it as being more of a computer enhanced live action video. The chapters on relativistic geometries and cosmological models could really be audio-visual treats, and it's hard to imagine a better basis for a script explaining the strange new world of physics to the interested lay public. The lions-share of what science now claims to know about the world was developed from a seemingly strange handful of theories thrashed out in the first three decades of the twentieth century. Gamow was both a party to this theoretical explosion and a gifted writer. Most of what has occurred in physics since these books were first published, has essentially been the refining of the ideas discussed here, so, for the most part, the science is still significant. But while Gamow had some important cosmological ideas -- he predicted the cosmic microwave background radiation, the discovery of which earned Wilson and Penzias a Noble Prize (in which Gamow should have shared, but did not) -- he also bet on the wrong horse when it came to cosmological models.
   Gamow cleverly and artfully presents the three basic cosmological models being argued from the 1930s through 1965.* The context is a night at the opera in which noted physicists sing the virtues of their respective theoretical opinions. First up is no other than the initial developer of the expanding universe ('big bang') model, the Belgian physicist and cleric, A. George Lemaitre. The Lemaitre universe is a majestically wondrous, one-off, elegant masterpiece. He sings, "Z' splendeur of z' origine. . . Worrk of Z' Lorrd!" Second is the oscillating or 'bouncing' model, and this piece is sung by Gamow, who at that time favored the concept of an eternally recycling universe (bang, expand, contract, re-bang, expand, contract, ->, etc). The third and last piece to be sung is of the Bondi-Gold self-maintaining or "steady state" universe, so famously preferred by Hoyle. Appropriately, this singer is generated mysteriously from intergalactic space, singing "Was never formed in time gone by. . . But is, has been. . .shall ever be. . ."
   Well, on this question we seem to have a winner, and no, it isn't Gamow's model. As Roger Penrose relates in the foreword, Gamow's bouncing universe and Hoyle's "steady state" model are both dead ducks these days. Seventy-five years of observation and mathematical fine-tuning have made something like Lemaitre's general understanding look like the only serious cosmological game in town. But don't hold that against this artful and thoroughly fun book. Gamow discounted the 'steady state', and most of the science here is still sound and relevant.
   *[File this under 'is there nothing new under the sun?': 1600 years ago, Augustine of Hippo recorded (City of God, Book XII) that classical cosmographies all distil into three basic models, the same three considered here by Gamow. (These same three models subsume the "innumerable universes" of Epicurus' speculation and of the recently famous so-called 'strong anthropic principle'.) Augustine bet on the right horse though, reasoning that the 'cycling' and 'eternal' models both seek finally to avoid rather than admit a true explanation. Only the universe-from-nothing (ex nihilo) model admits that the universe has an explanation -- albeit a grandly mysterious one.]
   This volume is classic science writing in a most entertaining package, it awaits some creative screenplay adaptor and video genius to make from it the best popular science audio-visual experience ever. Have at it.



4. It was a great transaction, Good prices, Great quality, and FAst delivery



5. I am nothing more than a humble interested amateur and my formal science education is limited to some advanced classes for my high school diploma many years ago. I picked up "Mr Tompkins" following a conversation with a physicist sitting next to me on a long flight. I found it to be an excellent introduction to modern physics in general and quantum mechanics in particular. I found it challenging and I wouldn't claim I understood every last detail, but it is definitely not necessary to have a profound knowledge of mathematical and physical concepts to read this book. The writing is witty, precise and thoroughly enjoyable. In fact I was so intrigued that I went and picked up two other books (Alice in Quantumland and Taking the Quantum Leap), both of which I found harder to read and not as suitable for the uninitiated as Mr Tompkins.

1 comments about Coya Come Home: A Congresswoman's Journey.

1. I thought that the story was fascinating. I grew up in the area and had always heard the story of "Coya" never knowing any of the characters. The book tells the story of the struggle of a hometown girl that was filled with passion and how she falls into politics and "tragically" falls out. The book shows just how corrupt the political scene can be, especially to a woman from a small midwestern town.

5 comments about Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader.

1. D'Souza does a decent job in his biography on the character of Reagan. My biggest complaint with this book is that it does not actually tell us anything about Reagan and his presidency. So much times is spent on the character that by the time you are done understanding Reagan's moral values the book is over and I felt I learned nothing about what Reagan did and how these values played out. For those who have really studied Reagan it is a great addition but if you are looking for only one book try Richard Reeves.



2. Very informative. This book will give you a new appreciation for our recent history.



3. Most biographers who attempt to write about Ronald Reagan typically get frustrated at some point in their effort and throw up their hands saying, "I can't get to know this man!" Indeed, the man that some many of us felt close to without ever having met him was apparently a very tough nut to crack if you wanted to get close to him in person.
   
   As a result, many biographies supposedly about Reagan offer very little insight into the man and what made him succeed and fail. They talk about his life and history, his advisers and their ideas, but they don't capture anything about the man that you wanted to learn about when you picked up the book in the first place - D'Souza does and that's what makes this book different and better from the rest.
   
   D'Souza was a young aid in the Reagan White House and maybe that gives him a bit of an advantage in capturing the essence of Reagan, but I think most of the credit has to go to something far more fundamental; D'Souza hasn't lost the ability to see Reagan the way most Americans saw him, he hasn't lost sight of what America was like before Reagan compared to what it's like now. That gives D'Souza a perspective on Reagan that most academics (which D'Souza is) neglect. It makes all the difference in this book.
   
   D'Souza really captures a man guided by a vision and a philosophy rather than by polls, a real leader rather than someone who went whichever way popular sentiment carried him. Reagan's ideas about America and its relationship to the rest of the world were positive, contrary to popular thoughts and, as it turns out, right.
   
   If you like Reagan, you will love the way D'Souza articulates how the man accomplished everything he did. If you don't like Reagan, D'Souza's look at Reagan offers the best argument I've encountered that you'll have to counter in order to sway his supporters to your way of thinking.
   
   Highly recommended. A great book about a great President.



4. In a way, I always thought that authors who write about Reagan have it easy. How hard could it be to write interesting and inspiring words about a man who was both?
   
   However, the author of this book has taken a bit of a different approach with this book by focusing as much on the "Reagan movenment" as he does Reagan himself.
   
   History is going to be very good to Reagan and it will be because of the movement he created - it spite of the spineless Republicans of today.
   
   I really enjoyed reading the book. It flows easily through the Reagan years and, if you are a Reagan fan, you will close this book, sigh, and say, "God I miss Ronald Reagan!"



5. Watch Video Here: http://www.amazon.com/review/R3KMX3LR39IF00 This is an oldie but a goody indeed. How McCain makes us long for Ronald Reagan the Great!

5 comments about Fidel Castro: My Life: A Spoken Autobiography.

1. This is the same man who after gaining power outlawed the possession of HIS OWN BOOK "La Historia Me Absolvera". Why? Well, because everything was basically a lie, an opportunistic farce. This was the same man who orchestrated a rebellion against a corrupt president and promised the reestablishment of clean elections after four years of gaining power. Yes, the same man. The same man that took the most affluent, fastest growing, and developed nation in the Caribbean also containing the highest middle class per-capita in Latin America, and totally ruined and destroyed it in the most capricious and pathetic way ever seen and then calls it paradise. The same man, who forces poverty on people and by the way is a billionare.
   
   After half a century of being a farce holding himself in power by extreme stalinist oppression and intervention into the minimums aspects of peoples lives, state slavery, and forcefully pimping Cuba as a Soviet satellite nation; should this book written by the man himself carry much weight now after 50 years OF THE SAME? Do we not know who he is, even better than how he (an egomaniac) could know himself and definitely want to perseave himself? Is half a century of careless destruction, cemented corruption, and slavery not enough?
   
   Is more, why should we in the capitalistic world be buying the book of a man who in his own slaved system prohibits free publishings and freedom of press. Even more, this book brings him monetary profit from the capitalist market. Why should we buy from a man who in his own slaved state prohibits private property, private business, and monetary freedoms.
   
   Today he's trash of accomplices are still in power thanks to the miserables of Canada and western Europe who dedicated themselves to maintain his cancerous presence over Cuba after the fall of the USSR, and later came the other wacko commi of H.Chavez to finance him even better at the expense of the Venezuelan economy. Rather read the books by Humberto Fontova on the matter, tremendous books, you will really know who Castro is after that.



2. Fidel Castro will always divide opinions and some people will think this autobiography "self-serving." But which autobiography isn't self-serving in taht it puts the writer's views across from his own perspective? And which anti-Castro exile in Miami doesn't express self-serving opinions? And is our own Government's constant anti-Castro propaganda not also self-serving?
   For me then this book isn't propaganda by Castro but at worst counter-propaganda. And for that I recommend it as a definite buy.
   As other reviewers have commented it's the insights from Castro's perspective rather than the American one that make this book so interesting.
   Castro is a great man whether you like him or not. A visionary who didn't allow his country to be intimidated by the States like so many other Latin American countries. Bottom line: with Castro Cuba is still an interesting nation with a soul. Without him it would be just another Reno or Las Vegas.



3. Fidel is a fascinating man and very controversial figure, to say the least. When you look at how long he has been in power, it is absolutely amazing. So it is nice to finally be able to read about events and ideas from his perspective in his own words. And don't skip the Notes in the back of the book that further explain his comments. These fill in a lot of blanks.
   
   In this interview/autobiography, Castro makes a lot of valid points. Their literacy and health care on the island, and their medical assistance to other countries is commendable. Plus, it is a colossal feat to withstand an embargo for almost 50 years by the "evil empire", the most powerful country in the world.
   
   The US was so paranoid about the spread of communism, that it was intent on destroying the revolution that freed Cuba of Batista, just as the US intervened in Chile and Guatemala by assassinating Allende and Arbenz. Documents even support Castro in the numerous attempts on his life and the US's involvement in undermining the Cuban government, and even harboring terrorists acting against Cuba.
   
   The explanations of the Bay of Pigs and the "Cuban Missile Crisis" alone make the book worth reading.



4. Though it feels like something of an awkward format for what is intended as the REAL word on Fidel Castro, and even though it will more than likely still be a very long time before we can really sum up the era of this man's Cuba, one alas must try to. This was after all one of history's most truly dynamic eras, one that changed not only the life of Cuba but of the world.
   
   He may come off tacit and allusive at times, but he observes the major events of his life and history with remarkable aplomb, and very rarely contradicts himself.
   
   When speaking about the development of his interest in politics during his University student days he explains how his original utopian ideas led to the firmer ground of Marxism as the scientific formula for the emancipation and liberation of all people... "Marxism taught me what society was. I was like a blindfolded man in a forest, who doesn't even know where north or south is. If you don't eventualy come to truly understand the history of the class struggle, or at least have a clear idea that society is divided between the rich and the poor, and that some people subjugate and exploit other people, you're lost in a forest not knowing anything."
   
   Even more politically moderate readers will be surprised at his encyclopedic knowledge of history, in particuular that of his native island, and all of Latin America, and his attempts to explain the TRUE ethics behind the egalitarian society he inspired so many people to aspire for. He observes that "As in all Western thought, Marti's philosophy contains a certain amount of Christian ethics" and the idea that even with the teachings of Christ you can "formulate a radical Socialist programme, whether you're a believer or not."
   
   He calmly and even logically explains his justification for mounting a guerrilla uprising to take state power rather than the long-broken electoral process in Cuba, and the summary trials and executions of traitors in their midst during those adrenaline-pumping days in the Sierra Maestra. He points out that "At that time, with a war being fought, it was unavoidable and it was effective, because from then on... a tradition has been created. And an ethics was born out of it: total respect for the populace."
   
   Answering the criticisms about his alliance with the former Soviet Union during this time of Cold War politics, he refers to the innumerable attempts by the "neighbor to the North" to sabotage this little island's right to self-determination. Objective and subjective factors accelerated the revolutionary process.
   
   Where his critics want so very badly for the ailing Castro to come off like a dogmatic dinosaur, a relic from history no longer of any significance, what you instead find is an idealistic, truly passionate and cultured human being, one who vigorously denounces the accuastions that a "cult of personality" exists in Cuba, and instead points to the patriotic fervor that runs through the island standing up to the great Goliath for all these years. And convincingly at that. He admits even that "the most difficult, most important fight that anyone with power faces is the fight against himself." Astounding coming from the man so oft-portrayed in the role of tyrannical dictator.
   
   "I work from the position of a tremendous confidence that this human being, with all his defects and limitations, has enough smarts, if you will, to preserve himself," Castro states, "and has enough intelligence to improve himself. If I didn't believe that, there'd be no reason to fight to the death."
   
   He interprets capitalism as "the creator of all sorts of germs," and Socialism as a society in which not necessarily are you devoid of those germs of corruption, but you rail against them harder and on a broader level, through a propaganda of education i.e. planting values and rigorously promoting them.
   
   What Western so-called "democracy" advocates call political repression, the Cuban government sees as stopping acts of treason from forces attempting to break the people's will. And its fairly common knowledge the long list of overt and covert attempts by imperialism to do just that for all these decades. Fidel announces "All we need as justification is that exactly that sort of felony has been perpetuated against us in the past."
   
   He answers 'freedom of press' critics with "our dream is of another freedom of the press, of a country that is educated and informed, of a country that has a holistic general culture and communicate with the world". One need only watch a couple hours of American television, whether news or entertainment, to realize how much culture digresses and decays in a capitalist society. Maybe there are no erroneous truths, but Fidel is right on much more than a few points in this book.
   
   "Socialism is constructed by free men who want to make a new society," he says. Thereby it is an instrument of liberation when weilded by a like-minded people. And force imposed is justifiable when used to keep a long-exploited people's will from being divided.
   
   As I said from the start, I don't think there can yet be a final word on the Castro era in Cuba today. Fidel is someone who will have to be judged by long history, the character of his and Cuba's work will grow clearer as it recedes from view. Build, resist, or be destroyed by the invading tentacles of imperialism.
   
   As Che Guevara famously said "The revolution is not an apple that falls when it is ripe. You have to make it fall." That is the current of thought that runs through the revolutionaries of the Cuban Revolution and its era on the world stage. And in here lies the foundations of a world that the militant working class dream of. A world where every human being, through the unity of diversity, can stretch out their hands to one another and heal, and work together for a better world.



5. This is a great book. You learn a different side of Castro that is depicted in the media. He is a very intelligent and interesting person. Whether you ageee with his polices or not, this is a good read.

5 comments about Journals: 1952-2000.

1. The man saw most everything, often from the inside. His chronicle over 40 years or so is a rich stew of inside stuff, history and gossip. Compulsive reading.



2. Historian/columnist Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. was the last half-century's most prolific, eloquent liberal voice. He served John Kennedy's administration as "special assistant to the president," wrote best-selling biographies of JFK, RFK, and Franklin Roosevelt, advised, wrote and edited speeches for Senator Ted Kennedy and most major Democratic leaders, and had working friendships with most of recent history's most influential political, literary, even entertainment figures. His exhaustive life journals numbered more than 6,000 pages; Schlesinger approved their publication before his 2007 death, and they were edited by two of his sons and Penguin Press to a still-formidable 858 pages.
   
   Yet amid Schlesinger's power lunches, society parties, and foreign trips seeming the setting for each page, he writes compelling, honest looks at friends and loved ones (wife Alexandra and children, the Kennedys, Adlai Stevenson, Henry Kissinger), enemies (Roy Cohn and Caspar Weinberger but chiefly Richard Nixon as the comic villain Schlesinger calls "Tricky") and loyalty to FDR/Truman/JFK liberalism.
   
   Schlesinger's opinions and observations fascinate, whether from inside as cabinet member or distantly as seasoned political observer. He called political gamesmanship his "favorite spectator sport," and his election year entries (especially those involving a Kennedy as late as 1984) are especially savory. Not to mention his disappointment at reduced roles in Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter's administrations. (Schlesinger even paraphrased Gerald Ford describing Carter's 1980 defeat.) His year 2000 entries even echo into this year's election race with frequent positive references to Hillary Clinton (in her First Lady and Senate campaign roles), John McCain, and a haunting closing sentence on then newly-elected President George W. Bush.
   
   Schlesinger's brief period as Nixon's next-door neighbor (years after placed on Nixon's "enemies list.") reads hilarious, as do some of the more pithy presidential cracks at predecessors (JFK on Eisenhower, Ford on Nixon).
   
   Yet even in these informal settings, Schlesinger's chronicles 1963 and 1968's horrific events with mastery and mourning for friends and political heroes. He repeats a generation's feelings on November 23, 1963, when wrting, "I still cannot believe this man (JFK)...of such intelligence and gaiety and strength, is dead. The wages of hate are fearful."
   
   Schlesinger's June 9, 1968 entry is possibly even more saddening. He speaks of Senator Robert Kennedy's assassination with personal heartbreak associated with losing a younger brother: "There was for me such a poignancy about RFK," he wrote, "all the greater now that they killed him before he had the chance to place his great gifts at the service of the nation and the presidency; Jack had at least 2 ½ years." These events shadow Schlesinger throughout the rest of his life and journals, from Ted Kennedy's presidential campaigns to tourists on the Kennedy front lawn.
   
   In his recent hit album, "Memory Almost Full," Paul McCartney writes, "When I think that all this stuff could make a life/it's pretty hard to take it in." It can be argued Schlesinger stood too close by one political family to keep an historian's objectivity. Or his Washington-New York social life (chronicled endlessly) cost him understanding of how Americans lived and viewed their history. But his was an important voice and seconding motion for the post-World War II years, and this well-edited collection of observations and perspective cement his niche in history behind the political giants he advised, chronicled, and befriended. Highly recommended.



3. Anyone who has read Schlesinger's books on Andrew Jackson, the New Deal, or John and Robert Kennedy knows how partisan he was. He viewed American history as a perennial struggle between noble, idealistic, intelligent liberals and selfish, materialistic, moronic conservatives. This is not my interpretation of his views. It was explicit in his meta-historical cyclical conception of American history, which he adopted from his father. Indeed, his partisanship was so obvious that it was harmless. These journals are no exception. Those people who opposed his heroes were not only wrong, they were morally and intellectually corrupt; and even, in the case of Lyndon Johnson, borderline insane. The only exception I could find was Henry Kissinger, whom Schlesinger usually described with respect. The same is true of events. The American involvement in Vietnam enters his journals only in 1966, with regard to Robert Kennedy's opposition to it. There is no way of knowing from these journals that John Kennedy was responsible for it.
   Nevertheless, these journals provide many interesting and important insights into the events and people that shaped American political history in the last half of the twentieth century.
   Moreover, among their most valuable passages are those in which Schlesinger's liberal bias itself is illuminating. For example, on page 363, he attributed George McGovern's catastrophic loss to Richard Nixon in the 1972 election mainly to racism, which he says was "the all-pervading issue of the election." According to Schlesinger, it was "the belief that Nixon can be relied upon to keep the blacks down" that caused large numbers of traditionally Democratic voters to vote for him. Schlesinger acknowledged that Nixon's supporters did not say that that they were racists. Schlesinger claims that instead of admitting their racism, Nixon's supporters used code words: welfare, crime, busing, schools, quotas. However, it should have been obvious that these were real and serious grievances. At that time, the rate of violent urban crime was rising by more than ten percent a year; children who lived a few blocks from a public school were being bussed for hours each day; etc. McGovern lost so terribly because he and his supporters thought like Schlesinger. They dismissed these real and serious grievances as expressions of racism.
   Another example is on page 437. There Schlesinger makes the interesting observation that Carter was the first Democratic president of the twentieth century whose programs did not have a label, like Wilson's New Freedom, Roosevelt's New Deal, Truman's Fair Deal, Kennedy's New Frontier, and Johnson's Great Society. He attributes this to Carter's defects. (Schlesinger loathed and execrated Carter.) Schlesinger could not see that the reason was that the Great Society completed the New Deal. (Completing the New Deal was Johnson's purpose, the dream he had had since he entered Congress as a fanatical Roosevelt supporter in 1937.) After the Great Society, there were no longer any new, broad, governmental economic programs that could gain the support of most Americans. Schlesinger regarded McGovern as the last Democratic candidate who represented the true Democratic tradition. But anyone who now reads the 1972 Democratic platform will be stunned by its vacuous phrase-mongering and shameless racial posturing. (Most Americans were revolted in 1972 also.)



4. Unless one is a scholar, those under 60 will not find this book of great interest. For someone my age (71) who's also a political junky with still-vivid memories of the 1960s forward, this book is an artistic and intellectual treasure. The editing--and there was obvious a lot of editing--results in jewels on virtually every page. Schlesinger undresses everyone of consequence he ever worked with, no holds barred, including the Kennedy family.
   
   In 1969 (maybe 1970) Lloyd Norman, dean of the Pentagon press corps, addressed a class I attended at Fort Benning, GA. He claimed before the so-called Cuban missile crisis, he was given a briefing about how the crisis at sea would be orchestrated, so there was never a real chance of armed confrontation. I could never get verification of this, and none of the popular or historical accounts mention it. Yet, on page 176 Schlesinger mentions an October 1962 letter from Khrushchev to Bertrand Russell about "his instructions to Soviet ships to avoid confrontation..." When Schlesinger heard about the incident from Averell Harriman, he sent a memo to the President describing the Khruschev letter. Kennedy, according to the book, "called Harriman the next day and asked him questions about it." Is this validation of Norman's account? Maybe.



5. Schlesinger's 'Journals' is a fantastic insight, focusing mainly on the Democratic Party's inner battles as well as a juicy dish piece for an intellectual socialite. The author may embarrass himself on a number of occasions, but he's always thoroughly readable and deadly honest. Criticisms of his devotion to the Kennedys might be accurate, but he's honest in his affection and very aware of it. Anyone thinking this is just a load of leftist propaganda ought take note of Schlesinger's animosity toward Gore Vidal and American communists, as well as warm relationships with Henry Kissinger, George HW Bush, and eventually William Buckley. (A fantastic subtext is the declining role of alcohol in American politics.) Does anyone know if there's a conservative book like this?

5 comments about Carry a Big Stick: The Uncommon Heroism of Theodore Roosevelt (Leaders in Action Series).

1. George Grant has written a delightful book about a delightful man.



2. I've read 40+ plus books by or about TR and this is the worst, one-sided view of this complex, multi-facted man. This is as bad as the radical-left "Howard Zinn-ism" revisionist history of TR's foreign policies.

   There are too many "blatant" errors to list in this mini-review, but just for starters:

   1). TR did not, as the author claims, visit his mother's Georgia plantation "10 or more times". It is well documented that TR only visited Bulloch Hall twice -once as president and once post-White House. He did not have a very high opinion of most Southerners, despite the author's claims to the contrary. His wife abhorred most Southerners.

   2). TR did not force his children, particulary Alice, to attend church every Sunday. Edith was the religious task master of the family and in her quiet manner usually rounded up all kids, except for Alice. Alice was a well-known, open atheist from her teen years until she died. TR and Edith had accepted the teenager's refusal to be confirmed in the Episcopal church or any other church. Their son Archie also grew up to be an agnostic.

   3). TR most certainly did NOT shower Edith with flowers and jewels. He never even remembered her birthday (though he never forgot the date of their engagement and wedding anniversay). Edith hated receiving extravagent gifts from anyone, especially her husband. They did have a very happy marriage and home life but he also known for taking off on 3-month hunting trips soon after Edith would deliver another baby.

   4). TR most certainly did like to attend parties and was a professional social butterfly because he knew he would probably end up as the main attraction - just what his ego needed. The author paints TR as a man who shunned social gatherings to be with his family 24/7. Definitely not true. He LOVED being around people of all and any type, though his wife certainly like to stoke the home fires more than making the social rounds.

   5). TR never made any speeches about abortion. Abortion was not on the radar screen in his time. The author uses quotes that TR said about women not wanting to get married and raise families to make it seem as though TR were speaking direcly on the subject of abortion.

   6). TR believed in and preached on the separation of Church and State. He wanted to remove "In God We Trust" from the US coinnage and even pushed one of the leading artists of that time, Grant LaFarge, to create a new design. The "religious right" of his time went ballistic over this decision and he later backed down. He made many speeches proclaiming that the Church stay out of the affairs of the State. Indeed, he was a strong, "old school" Christian who did preach to the citizens the value of religion, a happy home life, and following the morals one teaches to his/her children. However, he also thought a country would head down the dangerous path if a certain religion or belief were forced upon its citizens.

   I would not recommend this book on TR to ANYONE.




3. This is an incredible book, that truly gives you the insight of one of the greatest men that ever lived. Filled with many incredible principles to live by, you WILL enjoy this book and the excitement it brings to your life!



4. I just wanted a simple biography on Theodore Roosevelt, but this was pretty openly and obviously a book with an agenda. True, the basics about Theodore Roosevelt are here, but the emphasis is on spiritual faith and values. Since I read this book, I read Roosevlet's autobiography and came to realize that he is much more complex than this book suggests.



5. What a wonderful book! Teddy Roosevelt was brilliantly ressurected for us by George Grant in this comprehensive, yet easy-to-read work (because of the chapter lengths). Section 1 is a biography of his life; Section 2 contains short chapters on his character, and many sides to his life; Section 3 deals with his legacy.
   
   This book gives the reader a good look a life in the U.S. during the last half of the 19th century, as well as one of the period's most beloved of heroes.

5 comments about Fair Game: My Life as a Spy, My Betrayal by the White House.

1. Interesting read. Just goes to show you what lengths the CIA and our political leaders are willing to go to even for revenge.



2. This item arrived fast and in excellent condition--just as the seller stated--and the price was excellent!! Thanks!



3. Once again when universal lies prevail, telling the truth becomes the revolutionary act. I appreciate this book for the type of exposure it brought to how dangerous partisan politics can be and how close to home it can get when "revenge" is served from the Big Freezer. The book was in redacted form, but it still allowed for a efficient view of her story. Remember that she is telling this story for your benefit and not her own, even though a book deal soon followed. Understand that anyone is "fair game" when a specific agenda is to be reached. I know it will be thoroughly tough and confusing to vote this November. Ah, for want of a nail.



4. Plame got shafted over and over...
   Every american must know this story
   billincie



5. If agents's lives are this boring I feel badly for them. this book never took off. The writing was dry. It read like one long report. No characters. No real story. I bailed half way through and deleted it clear out of my Kindle.

5 comments about My American Journey.

1. Well, I kind of liked Colin Powell once. I kinda don't anymore. The book was ... dull. The same old same old - Horatio Alger type stuff. I bought the book because I thought that Colin might be going someplace and I wanted a glimpse at his philosophy. After his stint in Republican politics his future in that area looks pretty dim.
   He was a soldier and he has the soldier mentality. This book was probably designed to put him on his political career. I liked Swartzkoff's book much better. What happened to Swartzkoff anyway?



2. I read biographies of key officials as a means of trying to understand how they make decisions, and on what basis of fact or fancy they make decisions.
   
   Colin Powell is a great man, and I hope he returns as Secretary of State under a transpartisan team. He was destroyed by Dick Cheney and his own confusion of loyalty versus integrity.
   
   Here is the sentence, on page 293, that made my day:
   
   when he was Military Assistant to then Sectary of Defense Casper Weinberger, he preferred the Early Bird with its compendium of newspaper stories to the "cream of overnight intelligence" which was delivered to the Secretary of Defense by a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) courier each morning.
   
   See also:
   Preparing America's Foreign Policy for the 21st Century
   Vice: Dick Cheney and the Hijacking of the American Presidency
   Running on Empty: How the Democratic and Republican Parties Are Bankrupting Our Future and What Americans Can Do About It
   Weapons of Mass Deception: The Uses of Propaganda in Bush's War on Iraq
   Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA
   The New Craft of Intelligence: Personal, Public, & Political--Citizen's Action Handbook for Fighting Terrorism, Genocide, Disease, Toxic Bombs, & Corruption
   Fog Facts: Searching for Truth in the Land of Spin
   The Price of Loyalty : George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill
   High Noon 20 Global Problems, 20 Years to Solve Them



3. This book was a terrific read. The title isn't misleading - that's not really the word - but it doesn't give you a real sense of the book's value. This book is much more than what the title would lead you to believe.
   
   In it, Powell talks about his life in great detail, and because he's been such an important part of a lot of history in the latter part of the 20th century, it's almost like reading a detailed account of many important events in that time. He recalls in great detail what went into a number of important military affairs in the 1980s and early 1990s, which for me closed a lot of holes in what I knew about those events as someone just growing up at the time. It gives a number of great insights into the workings of Washington when it comes to military matters, and that along with the account of his life makes this a must-read book.
   
   His personal thoughts on many matters, which are interspersed throughout the book as he recounts the events, were what really struck me - things like his feelings about some military decisions, how he felt when he was away from family, and especially his feelings on the presidents and other cabinet officials he worked with later in his career. The last one stayed with me the most - many Americans don't think very highly of a lot of public officials (and not without their reasons, myself included), especially these days, but it wasn't lost on me that Powell has the highest words of praise for just about every president and cabinet official he worked with in the late 80s and early 90s, after having worked so closely with them.



4. After listening to how the government determines whether or not we should send out our troops and/or go to war, it helped me see him (and the president) from a different perspective. It also surprised me to hear that he IS NOT a Republican.



5. Colin Powel is clearly a great American as exemplified among his many accomplishments and life experiences. However, this presentation of his life story is arduous and without excitement. This book often presents itself more like an encyclopedia entry than an insightful biography. While equal blame may lay on my view of Powel's somewhat humdrum life as much as the writing style of this book, I believe this book will only be of interest to those already seeking to research Powell's life, not those in search of an enthralling piece.