4 comments about To Keep the Waters Troubled: The Life of Ida B. Wells.

1. I came away from this book with new respect for Wells, and her courage. I was overwhelmed with sadness after reading some of the details of the lynchings and the effect on the survivors. The book contains an excellent analysis of the real reason for many lynchings:economic competition.



2. McMurray's biography of Ida B. Wells-Barnett is a rare triumph. Wells-Barnett was a courageous American whose valor is depicted in full color. All too frequently, when there is a discussion of the impact of race, there is a mistaken assumption that black males comprise the affected population. Similarly, when gender is raised as an issue, the false assumption is that white women are the only ones to be affected. Wells-Barnett was an American woman of African descent who fought the societally-mandated strictures of race and sex until her death. I am emboldened by her deeds since too many of the same strictures still exist. I applaud McMurray for her scholarship in this biography's portrayal of the life of Wells-Barnett. This book is definitely recommended.



3. This book is interesting and easy to read, but hard to take. Ida B. Wells-Barnett was a complex person: incredibly smart, brave and strong, but at the same time, prickly and ultra sensative.The book also puts America's current racial and gender problems into perspective, showing us that we haven't come very far from the late 19th century's attitudes toward and treatment of African-Americans and women. This book is a must-read for anyone who cares about a great American or wants to face and learn more about America's shameful history. That said, the author's style makes it easy to read. Amazingly enough for a scholarly biography, I would often find myself reading late into the night because I couldn't put it down.



4. And one of the ten most impressive people I've ever read about, period. I can't say too much about how awed I am of the life of Ida B. Wells. Had I been her contemporary I would have worn out my knees trying to propose to her until she married me. McMurry's book shows how this woman has been short changed by history due to her uncompromising belief in African American equal rights and self-respect. She and people like another African American who doesn't get his due, Monroe Trotter, have been marginalized merely because in their day they demanded the same degree of self-respect and political and educational rights that Caucasians of every stripe took for granted. They were considered "radical" and "militant" for not compromising the way virtually all other African American leaders did during their era. Their marginalization goes a long way in explaining why the African American persona has never featured the degree of chutzpah and daring it has needed for us to advance farther than we have. Instead, all of us have been too heavily influenced by leaders promoted over Wells-Barnett and Trotter, who instilled caution within us as a people, virtually as second nature. Not even W.E.B. Du Bois conducted himself with the degree of pride and fortitude that people like Wells-Barnett and Trotter did. McMurry's book deserves a place on all reading lists in American history classes so that everyone can truly understand the troubling forces that made this country what it is today, and the manner in which people like Wells-Barnett were purposely silenced as part of a plan to keep African Americans oppressed.

5 comments about First Son : George W. Bush and the Bush Family Dynasty.

1. Maybe I'm slow...or too trusting. Previous reviewers kept insisting again and again that this book was "unbiased". WRONG. From the first page, the author had an attitude about Bush - and the GOP. It gradually became clear that the author is a passionate Democrat, as he approvingly whitewashed all personal Clinton and Democrat party issues and glorified people like Al Gore. The bias abounds throughout the book... RNC party strategists are called "political terrorists", while their DNC equals are portrayed as sincere victims at each turn of the two year campaign. And you Mom's and Dad's out there, tell me: what parent (such as George, Sr) would hug the son he loves (George W.) on the happiest day of his life, but instead of thinking of the incredibly close relationship of family love, pride, and respect that the father and son have always shared, the father is now thinking only of the three times in a lifetime that father/son had been briefly angry with each other. And why remind the reader again and again, as much as four times over hundreds of pages, of each small tidbit of negative information? Was he afraid we would forget? Why did it take me hundreds of pages of wasted time to finally realize that no matter what the Bushes say or do, this author is biased to hate Bush and the Bush family, and to love Gore - and the Democrats - and the RNC. Period. Every possible issue and personal examination is slanted toward contempt for the one, and pride in the other. BOTTOM LINE: This book was promoted DECEPTIVELY. If Mr. Minitaglio wanted to write a hate-piece, fine - but why not be up front about it? My recommendation for busy people who love to read is simply that you beware. Know before you go. I'm rating the book a 3, because my friends who are Democrats may enjoy this book. (but why waste time, since he is already president and there's nothing you can do about it?) BUT... my Republican friends, STAY AWAY from this book, because it is unfair, duplicitous, full of seething, underhanded bias that Bernard Goldberg courageously exposed in his excellent book "BIAS". The bias peeks out from - and underneath - every sentence. Hope this helps reverent readers like me who just want to read, and who just want the TRUTH.



2. I bought this book on a lark thinking it might actually be what the cover notes said is was "unbiased", but as soon as I saw Dan Rather's opinion on the book (printed on the back of the paperback I purchased), I should've known this book was not necessarily "the truth" on George W. Bush. Don't believe everything you read or hear from anyone in print or media. I encourage you to be selective and present things in context. . .

   Speaking of things in context, I really can't trust this book as gospel because Minutaglio quotes sources in such a sporadic way, footnoting the quotes only to look more credible. The quotes are sometimes ridiculous and misplaced, it seems, but albeit, very entertaining.

   That's just it, this book is entertaining and nothing more except to provide a biased peek at what Minutaglio believes is the driving force and reasons for our President's personality, politics, career choices, and other personal decisions.

   Juicy. As in gossipy.




3. This is a nice book detailing the history of the Bush/Walker clan and the early life of George W. Bush. There is a lot of trash out there about this man and his politics, so it is hard to get a good biography of him. Make no mistakes, Minutaglio reveals a lot of the unsavory side of George W., but it is unbiased and he deals in facts. He also covers the strengths of this man, so the reader can get the good and the bad about him. The author only reveals the facts of his National Guard stint and the glosses over the drug allegations, so the reader cannot judge the current controversy over these allegations. I enjoy a book dealing in facts and not conservative/liberal conjecture. Minutaglio does a good job in this.
   I especially like how Minutaglio reveals the personal relationship of George W. with his father. This is probably the most difficult aspect of this book, but the author summarizes their relationship well. Few other authors have attempted this with George W.
   For those wanting a good biography of our 43rd President, this is nice book and read. For those wanting to read trash, go elsewhere--there is plenty to pick from.



4. THIS IS AN UNADULTERATED PUFF PIECE THAT EITHER HIDES, OBSCURES, IGNORES OR COMPLETELY FABRICATES A NEW HISTORY & PERSONA FOR GEORGE W. BUSH!
   
   PLAIN & SIMPLE...THIS BOOK IS A JOKE...AND A COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME & MONEY (WHICH I'D LOVE TO GET BACK PLEASE!)!!



5. Minutaglio provides a detailed life of George W. Bush, from his birth in New Haven Connecticut to his first election as governor of Texas in 1994. (After that he only describes a few events from his eight years as governor and provides a brief afterword about the 2000 presidential campaign that, strangely, concludes without revealing the results of the Supreme Court decision that finalized the election.)
   
   Yet he fails to demonstrate that W. is only, or even largely, the product of the Bush dynasty. He fails to explain why Bush follows more in the new conservative steps of Reagan than in the moderate, non-ideological path of his father Bush 41. He doesn't mention neoconservatism at all, although Condi Rice is mentioned in the last pages. Yes, he does describe important elements of continuity in the dynasty (education at Andover, Yale, and Harvard; work in the West Texas oil fields; and common political experiences), but he fails to examine the very important differences between the two men, differences that may prove to be even more important.
   
   The book also overlooks the role of Bush's faith in God. He describes his 1986 decision to quit drinking as an effort to avoid embarrassing his father and calls his conversion experience an attempt to reach out to the Christian right. For someone like Bush who has been the most open president about his faith since William McKinley, this is a major oversight. Minutaglio should have explained how and why his faith was important to him and his political career.
   
   As a biography the book is fair and even-handed, describing Bush's wayward years, his maturing, and his achievements in business and politics. It provides good insight into how Bush developed as a man and politician. But it stops as Bush begins to emerge on the national stage as Texas governor.
   
   Minutaglio's writing is also repetitive, narrating the same incidents and characterizations at different places in the book. At times it seems disjointed, and he does a poor job of explaining where certain action occurs. But there are also some really funny stories, mostly at Bush's expense, in the book (e.g. the recycled Christmas cards and the cattle guard's uniform).
   
   Overall, a decent and impartial biography of W.'s pre-gubernatorial life, although the indifferent writing makes it a bit plodding to read at times.

3 comments about Code Name Kindred Spirit: Inside the Chinese Nuclear Espionage Scandal.

1. ... and the naivete of the Clinton administration in 1) kowtowing to China and offering all kinds of tribute in the form of sensitive technology, etc. and 2) hobbling the FBI investigation because of racial concerns.

   Unfortunately, many Asian-Americans (P.S. I'm Asian myself) were transformed into China's "useful idiots," blindly supporting Wen Ho Lee's unbelieveable charges of racism.

   Read along with "A Convenient Spy" and, if you've the stomach, Lee's own self-serving (but fatally incomplete) book.




2. I was one of those Americans originally conned into believing Wen Ho Lee was a victim of racial prejudice and unjust persecution. It enraged me that he was isolated and shacked during much of his imprisonment. Notra Trulock's revelations, however, have made me realize that the left-wing media cooperated with Bill Clinton's administration to provide cover for the latter's unforgivable fecklessness. Lee was likely a spy for the Chinese communist government. Nothing else comes close to explaining his suspicious behavior. At the minimum, Lee committed gross security violations mandating the revocation of his security clearance. Nonetheless, Clinton's people were apparently interested only in damage control. Slandering the author as a racial bigot and perhaps even mentally unbalanced was deemed necessary. The intellectual virus of political correctness also pervaded the culture---and the President took full advantage of this sad state of affairs to severely damage Mr. Trulock. The results were not pretty.
   
   The majority of American voters supported Bill Clinton in the 1992 election. They thought The End of History and the Last Man had arrived and our country could therefore concentrate on domestic issues. Islamic nihilism, for instance, was rarely even mentioned. Trulock's splendid work adds to the already substantial evidence that Clinton weakened our nation's defenses and emboldened our enemies. Reading Kindred Spirit is a harsh reminder that the citizens of the United States should never again become so nonchalant concerning their security. You should read Rich Lowry's: Legacy: Paying the Price for the Clinton Years. The National Review editor's book, as you might expect, is also highly critical of the Clinton era.



3. An amazing book. I met the author prior to reading the book and found him to be intriguing. This book is definitely worth taking the time to read, understand and absord exactly what took place.

5 comments about The Confessions (Wordsworth Classics of World Literature) (Classics of World Literature).

1. In his essay "On Rhetoric", Stanley Corngold addresses the rhetorical signs of autobiographical elements, and the use of language to create disruption, confusion, clarity or a sense of authenticity in the text, whether or not it actually is autobiographical or "a fictive chronicle of memory". Written elements of fiction can still function as an authentically constructed memory, and here Corngold makes a distinction between the lie and the fiction; an all important distinction for reading autobiographies like Rousseau's The Confessions. Figurative writing that refers to certain authentic emotions or personal imaginations of the writer, is considered fiction, whereas the conscious addition of a written element that does not belong to the memory or experiences of the author, is a lie.
   Corngold considers the imagination to be superior over fulfillment. However, when a text is confessional in nature, the justification of the own identity and self by showcasing its sincerity and integrity, and thus its contrast to the imagination, is at stake. Corngold states that the rhetoric as Rousseau uses it in his Confessions, promises a truthful description of emotions. Corngold points out that abstractions like emotions and sensations are impossible to accurately describe in words, especially when one considers the possibility of the narrator's own memory deceiving him. He discusses the Rousseau's intent when he wrote his autobiography, and concludes that the question of whether this was a cognitive or confessional intent is problematic but can be analyzed by studying Rousseau's use of rhetoric.
   
   Rousseau focuses mainly on his memories of moods in his autobiography The Confessions. One of the defining personal aspects that guide him in this is a sense of self-loss, and Rousseau seems to attempt to find and present himself by as accurately and truthful as possible describing his past actions and the sensation that caused and were caused by them.
   An air of a self-indulgent narcissitic, yet apologetic and insecure personality surrounds Rousseau's autobiography, but nevertheless it is this underlying sense of this personality that the reader gets from this work that may very well be the most truthful autobiographical element of The Confessions.
   Rousseau makes a distinction between his moods at the time of writing his autobiography and the past emotions he describes in his work, but doesn't openly acknowledge the likely possibility of the present mood influencing the memory of past sensations. However, I do value Rousseau's autobiography as authentic, as the emotions that he describes in his work were indeed descriptive of the sensations he must have felt while writing down his memories. In this regard, I think that the authenticity I perceive in Rousseau's work may not be the authenticity he intended to be perceived by a reader. In my opinion, it is impossible to narrate one's memories and past emotions as they actually were, without any influence of the present perceptions and moods of the narrator, and without taking into account that moods and moments sometimes last only seconds. However, I do agree with Corngold when it comes to prioritizing the imagination over the actual fulfillment and am convinced that Rousseau's imaginations about himself were not lies, but authentic fictions of and about himself.



2. Maybe you read Rousseau in college and your teacher mentioned EMILE. If you were lucky, he or she mentioned this, perhaps the greatest autobiography ever written. I read it when I was in my early twenties; it helped me to understand my feelings of loneliness, helplessness, and alienation. Years later, when I went to work for a large corporation, we had weekly meetings nominally about legal and regulatory issues, but the real "issues" on the participants' minds were the things they were talking about with each other before and after the meetings. I started reading excerpts from this book at our meetings. Everyone wanted to know what I was reading from. This was way before "book groups" became fashionable.
   
   Rousseau was one of the most influential philosophers of the "Enlightenment", but he was also a humanitarian in the sense that he always looked for the good in others. Sometimes he found it. You will feel this when reading this wonderful book. My copy from thirty years ago has my handwritten notes in the back that I have trouble reading now,
   but I know what the notes refer to, still recall the feelings I had when I made those notes, and remember how I wondered if I would ever understand how to live my life, how to relate to friends and family, how to figure out what is going on, most importantly how to deal with feelings. This book will not give you the answers, but it will give you the reassurance that your wonder and bewilderment are normal for thinking, sensitive persons. And that helps a lot. All this from one of the greatest literary artists since Plato.
   
   You will want to read passages to your friends. Just as I did all those years ago. And compared to some celebrated "coming of age" novels, this is
   the "Holy Bible".



3. My feelings when reading this unusual autobiography was one of identification with the writer - I suspect that there are behavioural and biological reasons for this, not ones that can be explained by psychology. The effect on me of the feelings Rousseau generated are indeed strange. I have immense sympathy with the man and yet I have a total lack of understanding of how he could give up his five children shortly after their births - and impose that on his partner too! He certainly fails to provide a satisfactory explanation for me. (Unless, of course, there simply weren't any children but he was unable to confess to that!)
   
   I also felt (feelings again!) that at times Rousseau was quite paranoid. Repeatedly the disasters he presaged were less troubling than I had feared. Over and over we come across what he describes as some of his best times of life. He did have a remarkable way of holding on to the light, even when regrets and threats existed, which tended to lighten some of the darkest times.
   
   His love of women was truly extraordinary - perhaps it was generated by his own childhood experience of being propositioned by a man; perhaps not. It was certainly love - if we believe these are true confessions - and not lust, despite what was going on in the French high society he hovered around.
   
   Perhaps the most interesting thing for me is that a very gifted philosopher can be wracked by self doubts and uncertainties.
   
   Other recommendations:
   'Diaries' - Alma Schindler (Mahler-Werfel)
   'Memoirs' - Hector Berlioz
   'Memoirs of a Revolutionist' - Peter Kroptkin
   'Memoirs of the Author of a Vindication of the Rights of Woman' - William Godwin



4. Prior to the appearance of Jean-Jacques Rousseau's 'Confessions,' there existed very few real autobiographies. The few that did exist were like St. Augustine's 'Confessions,' designed to impart a religious or moral lesson instead of to exhibit or try to justify one's life. By the time Rousseau came along, however, people had begun to see themselves as individuals, not members of a society governed based on religious or monarchical precepts. So though writing one's autobiography may be old hat now, this was a revolutionary thing in the 18th century. This autobiography is also special in that Jean-Jacques reveals himself warts and all. He doesn't gloss over faults or embarrassing incidents; he exhibits all of himself, both the good and the bad.
   
   This book was highly recommended by the wonderful History of the Enlightenment professor I had my senior year of college, and I was thrilled to find a copy (for only 50 cents!) about 5 years later. I'd been eager to read it based on the professor's lurid descriptions of it. He told us that, among other things, Rousseau revealed that he liked to be spanked, he described his sex life, and he had a very interesting problem centered in his midsection, manifested in how he had urinary problems that always seemed to crop up whenever he was about to be integrated into society, such as one time when he was going to be given some money by the king to further his writing, but his problem struck, and he excused himself and went out into the hall, where he ended up urinating on the floor, unable to hold himself, and was laughed at by the servant-women. I was kind of disappointed that the book didn't turn out as spicy as my professor had made it out to be, but I still loved every moment of it just the same. My professor's teasers of what the book contains were just the tip of the iceberg. Among many other fascinating stories and tidbits, we also learn about such things as his extreme shyness with women he was attracted to, how he was a late bloomer who didn't lose his virginity till he was in his early twenties, how several of the women he was attracted to and had relationships with were older women (among them his first lover, Mme. de Warens, who was far more than just a lover but also his teacher, his mentor, and his patron), how he was beaten horribly by the man he was apprenticed to in Geneva as a teenager, the real story behind why he gave all 5 of his kids away to foundling hospitals, the increasing persecutions and exiles he endured, how he engaged in self-gratification, and how, as a young man, he had advances made to him by two other men (one of them a priest). Although one wonders how much paranoia might have played into these growing conspiracies against him he laments. While there is ample evidence that a number of his former friends turned against him (to say nothing of how he was thrown out of a lot of places he tried to find refuge in after 'The Social Contract' and 'Émile' were banned), it also seems kind of weird that so many people would form all of these vast far-reaching conspiracies against him out of nowhere. Still, Jean-Jacques comes across as such an interesting likeable person, whom just about anyone can relate to, that this obsession with these alleged conspiracies can be overlooked. One wishes that the book covered his whole life and not just from 1712 to 1765, since he's just such an interesting character!
   
   My translation is the one by J.M. Cohen, which is over 50 years old now, but gets the job done in spite of a few dated spots. The basic story remains the same in spite of some dated phrases and language (e.g., does anyone under the age of 100 still use diminutive words like "authoress" or "patroness" anymore?). I also wish there had been an index, particularly since what with so many people coming and going in Jean-Jacques's life (he knew so many famous and prominent people in Enlightenment Europe!), it can be kind of hard to keep track of just who's whom. Still, minor quibbles aside, he was a truly fascinating person, and this classic work of autobiography and the Enlightenment is not to be missed.



5. There will never be another Jean-Jacques Rousseau and since he lived in a period without radio and television, he is talking to us through his books. While being hailed as one of the intellectual fathers of modern democracy, Rousseau also has a very interesting personality.
   
   I highly recommend Confessions, many lovely short stories are so vivid that a reader almost feels being there with Rousseau.

2 comments about Becoming Winston Churchill: The Untold Story of Young Winston and his American Mentor.

1. for people really interested in the only mentor churchill ever had this book is a must have



2. I have been a student of Sir Winston Churchill my entire life. Long enough to consider myself a Churchill historian and serious collector of any and all items related to his life. My personal Churchill library is extensive and I am indeed proud to know Michael McMenamin, author of "Becoming Winston Churchill" and to add his book to my library! Michael has done an outstanding job sharing with us the important influence that Mr. Bourke Cockran had on Winston as he formed his personal and political beliefs early in his life. He obviously was regarded a close personal friend, mentor and perhaps even as a respected father figure. I recommend this book highly! Donald E. Jakeway

3 comments about Winston Churchill: Statesman of the Century (Great Leaders).

1. Beautifully simply profoundly written book .A must reading for all laymen all good people interested in a champion of freedom.



2. I purchased this book because I needed to do a research paper which included a short biography on Churchill. This book is very concise and proved to be an asset to my paper. The biographies by Gilbert or Jenkins are very lengthy and it is difficult to sum them up and take out the main points. I am glad I found this book by Robin H Neillands.



3. Go read David Irving's biography instead, meticulously researched and you can read it online free.

No comments about Mr. Democrat: Jim Farley, the New Deal and the Making of Modern American Politics.

2 comments about Roosevelt: Soldier of Freedom 1940-1945.

1. This is Mr. Burns' companion volume to his Lion and the Fox (check that out). This focuses on FDR's WWII War Administration: policies, attitudes, hopes and worldly goals.

   FDR's dedication to the well-being of the United States in WWII is evidenced by the fact that to start with, he didn't want a third term in office come 1940. Indeed, such aspirations were frowned upon in the political community. It did not stop him; as he saw it, it was his duty and obligation to the American people to keep familiar leadership in time of international turmoil. Other obstacles: struggles to arm allies, constant planning and meeting with allied leaders, and gradual, failing health. Burns also shows FDR's political savvy, using the utilization for war to the nation's advantage. Many unemployed workers were put back to work, which helped shift American industry into an overdrive that didn't stop for decades. Vision: as a disciple of Woodrow Wilson, he had a vision of a United Nations. One that he did not live to see.

   For anyone reading about FDR, or World War II, this companion volume on his war administration is a must for anyone's collection, as it has become in mine.




2. This scholarly, yet elegant, book won the Pulitzer Prize, Francis Parkman Prize, and National Book Award. It thoroughly covers Roosevelt's presidency leading up to and including World War II, and yet the prose is unusually engaging for a work with so much information.
   
   "Soldier of Freedom" covers America's dilemma leading up the war. Should America get involved or not? How should Roosevelt lead an isolationist America to responsibly confront the war that waged in Europe? How should America plan for the threat? What strategy to win the biggest war in history? What kind of peace?
   
   Once the war began, America needed to become mobilized. This book tells the story of war administration in scholarly detail. It covers especially well Roosevelt's diplomacy, so important for victory. He understood that alliances would be crucial to win World War Two, which meant tactful maneuvers and calculated trade-offs. The book also presents Roosevelt's interpretation of the meaning of the war and his vision for a better post-war world.
   
   As one of the reviews states on the back of the book, "Soldier of Freedom" combines rigorous scholarship while being enjoyable to read.
   
   "The Time 100 Most Important People of the 20th Century" named Einstein, Gandi and Franklin D. Roosevelt the three most important people of that Century. This book partly explains why FDR was the most important politician of the 20th Century.
   
   FDR created the modern, powerful presidency. He transformed America from weak, uninvolved isolationism into an active superpower. He established the firm posture of moral, yet pragmatic, international leadership (FDR Americanism) that would serve America (and the world) so well through the Cold War.
   
   James MacGregor Burns, the author, is a great scholar and biographer, and therefore I believe this to be a highly authoritative biography. For example, Burns also wrote one of the best biographies of George Washington. He has authored several excellent works about leadership, including the book "Transforming Leadership." I believe his scholarship is highly authoritative and fair.
   
   I remember reading quotes that Burns made in newspaper stating that Ronald Reagan was "a great or near-great president" because Reagan was a "transforming" president, like Franklin Roosevelt and Theodore Roosevelt. (Reagan, by the way, adored FDR, voted for him multiple times, and attended one of FDR's inaugurations - a deeply moving event for Reagan).
   
   General readers interested in Franklin Roosevelt can also choose from many other one-volume biographies by other authors, such as Black's superb "Champion of Freedom," "Leuchtenburg's "Franklin D. Roosevelt," Friedel's "Rendezvous with Destiny," or Jenkins' brief "Franklin Delano Roosevelt."
   
   Finally, Roosevelt was a powerful speaker. In one survey of speech experts, Roosevelt was ranked the greates presidential speeker, with Reagan coming in second. (Reagan borrowed heavily from Roosevelt, both in style and content). Roosevelt's inauguration speech in 1940 is regarded as one of the ten greatest presidential speeches. It wonderfully defined the impending struggle for freedom against Hitler. Here is Roosevelt's speech:
   
   "On each national day of inauguration since 1789, the people have renewed their sense of dedication to the United States.
   
   "In Washington's day the task of the people was to create and weld together a nation.
   
   "In Lincoln's day the task of the people was to preserve that Nation from disruption from within.
   
   "In this day the task of the people is to save that Nation and its institutions from disruption from without.
   
   "To us there has come a time, in the midst of swift happenings, to pause for a moment and take stock--to recall what our place in history has been, and to rediscover what we are and what we may be. If we do not, we risk the real peril of inaction.
   
   "Lives of nations are determined not by the count of years, but by the lifetime of the human spirit. The life of a man is three-score years and ten: a little more, a little less. The life of a nation is the fullness of the measure of its will to live.
   
   "There are men who doubt this. There are men who believe that democracy, as a form of Government and a frame of life, is limited or measured by a kind of mystical and artificial fate that, for some unexplained reason, tyranny and slavery have become the surging wave of the future--and that freedom is an ebbing tide.
   
   "But we Americans know that this is not true.
   
   "Eight years ago, when the life of this Republic seemed frozen by a fatalistic terror, we proved that this is not true. We were in the midst of shock--but we acted. We acted quickly, boldly, decisively.
   
   "These later years have been living years--fruitful years for the people of this democracy. For they have brought to us greater security and, I hope, a better understanding that life's ideals are to be measured in other than material things.
   
   "Most vital to our present and our future is this experience of a democracy which successfully survived crisis at home; put away many evil things; built new structures on enduring lines; and, through it all, maintained the fact of its democracy.
   
   "For action has been taken within the three-way framework of the Constitution of the United States. The coordinate branches of the Government continue freely to function. The Bill of Rights remains inviolate. The freedom of elections is wholly maintained. Prophets of the downfall of American democracy have seen their dire predictions come to naught.
   
   "Democracy is not dying.
   
   "We know it because we have seen it revive--and grow.
   
   "We know it cannot die--because it is built on the unhampered initiative of individual men and women joined together in a common enterprise--an enterprise undertaken and carried through by the free expression of a free majority.
   
   "We know it because democracy alone, of all forms of government, enlists the full force of men's enlightened will.
   
   "We know it because democracy alone has constructed an unlimited civilization capable of infinite progress in the improvement of human life.
   
   "We know it because, if we look below the surface, we sense it still spreading on every continent--for it is the most humane, the most advanced, and in the end the most unconquerable of all forms of human society.
   
   "A nation, like a person, has a body--a body that must be fed and clothed and housed, invigorated and rested, in a manner that measures up to the objectives of our time.
   
   "A nation, like a person, has a mind--a mind that must be kept informed and alert, that must know itself, that understands the hopes and the needs of its neighbors--all the other nations that live within the narrowing circle of the world.
   
   "And a nation, like a person, has something deeper, something more permanent, something larger than the sum of all its parts. It is that something which matters most to its future--which calls forth the most sacred guarding of its present.
   
   "It is a thing for which we find it difficult--even impossible--to hit upon a single, simple word.
   
   "And yet we all understand what it is--the spirit--the faith of America. It is the product of centuries. It was born in the multitudes of those who came from many lands--some of high degree, but mostly plain people, who sought here, early and late, to find freedom more freely.
   
   "The democratic aspiration is no mere recent phase in human history. It is human history. It permeated the ancient life of early peoples. It blazed anew in the middle ages. It was written in Magna Charta.
   
   "In the Americas its impact has been irresistible. America has been the New World in all tongues, to all peoples, not because this continent was a new-found land, but because all those who came here believed they could create upon this continent a new life--a life that should be new in freedom.
   
   "Its vitality was written into our own Mayflower Compact, into the Declaration of Independence, into the Constitution of the United States, into the Gettysburg Address.
   
   "Those who first came here to carry out the longings of their spirit, and the millions who followed, and the stock that sprang from them--all have moved forward constantly and consistently toward an ideal which in itself has gained stature and clarity with each generation.
   
   "The hopes of the Republic cannot forever tolerate either undeserved poverty or self-serving wealth.
   
   "We know that we still have far to go; that we must more greatly build the security and the opportunity and the knowledge of every citizen, in the measure justified by the resources and the capacity of the land.
   
   "But it is not enough to achieve these purposes alone. It is not enough to clothe and feed the body of this Nation, and instruct and inform its mind. For there is also the spirit. And of the three, the greatest is the spirit.
   
   "Without the body and the mind, as all men know, the Nation could not live.
   
   "But if the spirit of America were killed, even though the Nation's body and mind, constricted in an alien world, lived on, the America we know would have perished.
   
   "That spirit--that faith--speaks to us in our daily lives in ways often unnoticed, because they seem so obvious. It speaks to us here in the Capital of the Nation. It speaks to us through the processes of governing in the sovereignties of 48 States. It speaks to us in our counties, in our cities, in our towns, and in our villages. It speaks to us from the other nations of the hemisphere, and from those across the seas--the enslaved, as well as the free. Sometimes we fail to hear or heed these voices of freedom because to us the privilege of our freedom is such an old, old story.
   
   "The destiny of America was proclaimed in words of prophecy spoken by our first President in his first inaugural in 1789--words almost directed, it would seem, to this year of 1941: "The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the destiny of the republican model of government are justly considered ... deeply, ... finally, staked on the experiment intrusted to the hands of the American people."
   
   "If we lose that sacred fire--if we let it be smothered with doubt and fear--then we shall reject the destiny which Washington strove so valiantly and so triumphantly to establish. The preservation of the spirit and faith of the Nation does, and will, furnish the highest justification for every sacrifice that we may make in the cause of national defense.
   
   "In the face of great perils never before encountered, our strong purpose is to protect and to perpetuate the integrity of democracy.
   
   "For this we muster the spirit of America, and the faith of America.
   
   "We do not retreat. We are not content to stand still. As Americans, we go forward, in the service of our country, by the will of God."

No comments about Bash the Rich.

1 comments about Praised Be Our Lords: The Autobiography.

1. Régis Debray's wrong-headed `foco' theory on guerrilla warfare was noted by Che Guevara, so Castro invited Debray to Cuba, and then sent him to Bolivia, to prepare the ground for Che. On his release from prison in 1971, Chilean President Salvador Allende greeted him as Che's former companion. Debray then took a message from Allende to François Mitterand in 1972, and in 1981 President Mitterand took him on at the Elysée Palace, as a putative expert on the Third World.
   
   He recounts how for years he worked for Mitterand churning out `kilometres of pure Mitterand non-stop'. His book lists the celebrities he has met, in the same way that he procured intellectuals for exclusive, pointless interviews with Mitterand.
   
   Verso notes that this book was `published with the aid of the French Ministry of Culture', and you can see why. It fits Verso's agenda by joining and celebrating the inglorious tradition of renegacy, including the likes of Ignazio Silone, the `great Italian anti-fascist' who spied on his comrades for Mussolini.
   
   Who are the lords that he praises, even if ever so ironically? Certainly he had a servile relationship with his patron Mitterand. Is he plugging his recent book on God? Is he referring to Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin, whom he ritually derides? Or to Fidel and Che? This would surely win him brownie points with the CIA and France's DGSE, since it fits so neatly with the current US/EU attacks on Cuba. He finishes with `A Brief Militant's Lexicon', a random list of sneers at people better than himself.
   
   This dreary and virtually unreadable tome is a Catholic confession of disillusionment, just the latest instalment in the `God that failed' genre, the answer to which has always been - don't have a God in the first place!
   
   Debray was never part of the French working class, always déclassé and déraciné. He is an accidental man, a cynical theorist, promoted, virtually by chance, well beyond his competence, `a marginal memorialist', as he calls himself. His book proves once again that real revolutionaries, rightly, don't produce autobiographies.