1 comments about Diarios de Motocicleta: Notas de Viaje (Film Tie-in Edition) (Che Guevara Publishing Project / Ocean Sur).

1. NO HAY NADA MAS LINDO QUE LEER ACERCA DE NUESTROS PAISES, APRENDER DE ELLOS, POR LOS OJOS DE UN JOVEN VIAJANTE COMO "CHE GUEVARA". SE LOS RECOMIENDO! LEANLO! :)

5 comments about Five Years of My Life: An Innocent Man in Guantanamo.

1. A first hand testimony of how things can go so wrong when we forget to treat people as human beings



2. The book highlights some of the darkest sides of the Bush administation's "War On Terror". Murat Kurnaz tells a breathtaking and horrifying story about the unlawful detention that took away his youth.
   
   He was exposed to some of the most humiliating, inhumane and painful treatments possible. He was hung up on a hook in the ceiling for five days, electified, nearly drowned, subjected to mock execution, put in solitary confinement for extreme stretches in unbearable heat or cold, put in a room with no air supply among many, many other things.
   
   This book is a wake-up call to the cruel world we live in, and is a MUST READ for anyone interested in what REALLY happens outside their backyard.



3. After reading an FBI report about the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo, the U.S. Senator from Illinois, Dick Durbin, compared it to the Nazis. He was later forced to apologize after the Anti-Defamation League, among otheres, objected to any comparison with the Holocaust. It's too bad Durbin apologized because after reading Murat Kurnaz's account of his experience at Guantanamo, Nazilike is the only adjective that comes to mind. We should keep in mind that the Holocaust--that is, genocide on an industrial scale--didn't spring full-blown in the Nazi's plans. Those plans were enabled by the failure of the international community to try to stop the Nazi persecution of the Jews. Kristallnacht was preliminary to the Holocaust but the fact that the Nazis got away with it, paved the way for the Holocaust. Other reviewers have commented on how upset they were reading this book and how difficult they found it to sleep afterwards. I had the same response, in part because you realize that we too are capable of bestiality, that we, too, are living in a period of incipient fascism in this country. If the true authors of the torture policies at Guantanamo--Dick Cheney, David Addington, John Yoo, Alberto Gonazales, Donald Rumsfeld, George Bush, etc.--are allowed to get away with their crimes and are not held accountable, we will have enabled our leaders to carry out even greater crimes.



4. In this book, translated from German, Murat Kurnaz, a German Turk, tells his tragic story. When only nineteen and an apprentice shipbuilder, while taking time off in Pakistan for religious study, he was hauled off a bus and imprisoned for a short time before being `sold' to the US Administration for $3,000. This was a bargain - the Americans were offering $5,000 - $25,000 to locals for anyone suspected of being Taliban or Al Qaeda. With such tempting offerings, many innocent men - usually foreigners - were gladly exchanged for the money which converted into huge amounts in the local currency.
   
   Murat was sent first to a prison camp in Kandahar, Afghanistan and then later to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In both places he was repeatedly and relentlessly tortured. Among other things he was constantly beaten, often for no reason, he was water boarded, he was electrically shocked on the soles of his feet, he was hung from the ceiling by his arms tied behind him for hours on end, he was deprived of sleep for weeks at a time, he was forced to stand for days, he was starved, he was force fed, he was put in an air-tight metal container and subjected to extreme heat and cold and of course there were the months of solitary confinement. In Guantanamo he came across prisoners as young as 14 and a few even in their 80s and 90s.
   
   Like all the books on Guantanamo, there is almost a shock a page. Besides the main tortures listed above, what I found almost as deplorable was how vindictive, sadistic and cruel the soldiers were to the detainees in little ways all the time and always there were endless lies. Also appalling were Murat's descriptions of female soldiers in one of the camps, watching while naked male prisoners defecated in a communal bucket in the open pen. And in Guantanamo, scantily dressed young women rubbed themselves against him and made sexual suggestions. One wonders if their male superiors ordered them to do this or if they thought up these little torments themselves. But it should also be said that a few guards treated the detainees with basic decency.
   
   At the end of the book we learn that the Administration knew 6 months into Murat's capture that he was innocent, but kept him on, continued the torture and even made wild accusations against him - presumably to save face. After 5 years when he was finally to be sent back to Germany, on the way out they made a last ditch effort to make him sign a statement saying he was either Taliban or Al Qaeda or he must stay in Cuba. He refused.
   
   How do we know all this is true? Having read so many similar accounts from so many prisoners of many different nationalities and languages, from different cell blocks, who could not have collaborated - talking between the detainees was almost always prohibited - I am convinced that what is described is essentially what happened. The Epilogue, written by his American attorney, Baher Azmy, a law professor in New Jersey, is excellent. Murat was robbed of part of his youth with no explanation or apology so it is hardly surprising he felt compelled to tell his story. He finishes with - "We have to tell the world how Abdul lost his legs and how the Moroccan captain lost his fingers. The world needs to know about the prisoners who died in Kandahar. We have to describe how the doctors came only to check whether we were dead or could stand to be tortured for a little longer."



5. I am so shocked and moved after reading this book. This is a must read for everyone.. What happens in Guantanamo is inhumane. Not even animals are treated this way.

5 comments about La audacia de la esperanza: Reflexiones sobre cómo restaurar el sueño americano (Vintage Espanol).

1. I am a Republican and plan to vote for John McCain, but this is a great translation--definitely one of the best Spanish books available on Amazon.
   
   Mr. Obama's writing is lofty. The translator has done a remarkable job with this book.
   
   Much of his beautiful rhetoric, unfortunately, will not translate into action if he is elected president. Obama is a great speaker and a fine writer, but he is not a magician.



2. It is common knowledge that Hispanics have not supported Obama. And that is not likely to change, particularly when you consider such obvious ploys as this one. If a group of voters won't support you...have your book translated into Spanish and they WILL. A nice idea in theory...but it is not working and it will not. Few Hispanics are interested in Obama's message regardless of the language. Another failed political strategy from the crumbling Obama campaign...



3. En su libro "La Audacia de la Esperanza", Barack Obama revela sus pensamientos e ideas políticas, su visión sobre la vida y sus vicisitudes, las expectativas de la gente, empleando un estilo literario que sorprende por lo atildado y agradable, sin dejar de ser profundo por los temas que abarca.
   
   Todo un hallazgo; lo leí y lo recomiendo como lector que gusta de contar con buenos libros en su biblioteca.



4. Altamente recomendado para tratar de entender las complejidades de la sociedad norteamericana actual y la vision del candidato democrata a la presidencia de los Estados Unidos de America.
   
   Este es un libro que se puede leer de corrido y con un calidad literaria no muy comun en analisis politicos. A pesar de un par de errores de genero que se le escaparon al corrector en la traduccion por Claudia Casanova, la traduccion de los terminos politicos es muy acertada. Las notas de traduccion son limitadas y van directo al punto.
   
   Great translation job. After comparing with the English version, I really liked how the spirit of the book is translated into Spanish despite difficult-to-translate cultural references. The easy flow and style is preserved in the Spanish version making it a very readable book.



5. Good book, takes off a little slow but very insightful. I read it in English and then in spanish, it definetly translated well.
   
   Disregard babysue's input (17 negative reviews on Obama-related books she has not read), I love how she can speak for latinos when she has very little knowledge of anything outside her little bubble.

5 comments about Prison Writings: My Life Is My Sun Dance.

1. This is a true story of an Indian who is in prison
   just because he's an Indian. I real eye opener and
   interesting facts about the Indians here today.



2. Leonard Peltier, United States Prisoner 89637-132, has been imprisoned since 1977 for the deaths of two FBI agents on the Pine Ridge Reservation of the Lakota Indians during the 1973 siege at Wounded Knee, South Dakota. Most likely the scapegoat for the deaths during a blundered surveillance attempt, Peltier has been a cause celeb during the final throws of every president since Jimmy Carter as many supporters - including the U.S. Prosecutor that put him in jail in the first place - come together to call for his parden.
   
   There are other sources for an in-depth understanding of the events that led to his imprisonment such as Peter Mathiesson's *In the Spirit of Crazy Horse* and the Robert Redford film *Incident at Oglala*. But Prison Writings is a must read in any study of not only the Wounded Knee incident, but the American Indian Movement as a whole and native issues throughout the country.
   
   This book weaves Peltier's life as a prisoner in the U.S. prison system with his account of the events of 1973 and his views on the state of affairs for Native Americans as a whole. Peltier's life evolved from an aimless youth on the reservation to a political activist, and at times it seems that his life sentence is a natural extension of this progression - as if his destiny was to suffer for the cause.
   
   When you look at the evidence of all that transpired at Wounded Knee in 1973 and the years that followed, including what happened to other activists such as Annie Mae Aquash, and the now revealed manipulation of evidence by the FBI and the all-out war against Native American activism in the 1970s, Leonard Peltier's *Prison Writings* become somewhat of a manifesto and call for a better future.
   
   >>>>>>><<<<<<<
   
   A Guide to my Book Rating System:
   
   1 star = The wood pulp would have been better utilized as toilet paper.
   2 stars = Don't bother, clean your bathroom instead.
   3 stars = Wasn't a waste of time, but it was time wasted.
   4 stars = Good book, but not life altering.
   5 stars = This book changed my world in at least some small way.



3. After all is said and done, just read the thousands of pages that the U.S. government, through the FBI, the U.S. Attorney's office and court records, was forced to release about this case. It is their own words about their own deliberate withholding of evidence, fabrication of evidence, deliberate perjured testimony and numerous other violations of U.S. law, rules of evidence, and other assorted felonies.



4. The rhetoric of the other reviews aside, Prison Writings would make for a compelling story had Peltier included some truth to support his allegations surrounding the events of June 26, 1975 on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, South Dakota.
   
   By way of a brief background, Peltier was represented by capable and experienced counsel and during his trial the jury heard that FBI agents Jack Coler and Ron Williams were following who they thought was another wanted person. They actually followed Peltier and two teenagers who began shooting at the agents who were then trapped and exposed in an open area. Peltier was joined by several others, including Dino Butler and Robert Robideau who also fired on the agents from another direction. Both Coler and Williams were severely wounded and unable to defend themselves. Peltier's jury heard that Peltier, Robideau and Butler went down to the wounded agents and shot them both in the face at point-blank range with a high powered rife. The jury believed the testimony they heard and Peltier was convicted for, among other things, aiding and abetting and sentenced to two consecutive life sentences. He later received an additional seven year consecutive sentence for an armed escape from Lompoc federal penitentiary. (In a separate and earlier trial, Dino Butler and Robert Robideau were acquitted of the murders. However, this review relates specifically to how Peltier portrays the facts surrounding these events in Prison Writings. There is much more to the entire saga.)
   
   It's important to place Prison Writings in its proper chronological context. Prison Writings was published in 1999. An important related book touted by Peltier and the Leonard Peltier Defense Committee (LPDC) that "immortalizes Leonard Peltier," In The Spirit of Crazy Horse (ITSOCH) by Peter Matthiessen was first published in 1983 and in 1992. A film, Incident at Oglala (Incident), narrated by Robert Redford was released in 1992. Collectively, these sources, in addition to the many public statements made by Peltier, Butler and Robideau, demonstrate that Peltier is not only fabricating the history of his own case but knowingly lies about certain events.
   
   There are many more, but for example:
   
   The scene:
   Peltier initially claimed he was in the AIM camp to the south of the Jumping Bull property, heard shots, responded and "I fired off a few shots above their heads, trying not to hit anything (p.125)." And also "I didn't see their agents die, had no hand in it..." (p.127). Yet in a CNN interview in October, 1999 Peltier admitted being there and told interviewer Mark Potter "I don't know, just two people laying there. I mean, the car door--the car door open and stuff."
   
   The alibi:
   For the better part of nearly two decades Peltier had offered only one alibi about who was responsible for the final killing shots to the agents' faces. He claimed that someone they all knew but would not identify (Mr. X), had driven to the reservation that day in a red pickup truck to deliver dynamite and that it was Mr. X who engaged the agents initially and then, once wounded and unable to defend themselves, killed the agents and drove off. In Incident Robideau is filmed pointing to the area where Mr. X murdered the agents and drove off in the red pickup truck. This claim was so far-fetched that not even Peltier's trial lawyers wanted to go near it, but they did their best to create confusion with the jury over the alleged red pickup truck. Matthiessen, although skeptical himself, spent a great deal of time on Mr. X in ITSOCH. However, in a 1995 interview with News from Indian Country, one of the three participants, Dino Butler, publicly said that the Mr. X story was a lie; "Well, there is no Mr. X. There was no man coming to our camp that day bringing dynamite." "To create this lie to show that someone else pulled the trigger." " That is totally false. Totally untrue. That never happened."
   
   It should come as no surprise that Mr. X. and the red pickup are never mentioned in Prison Writings.
   
   Aiding and abetting:
   Peltier tries to convince the reader that the "vague crime of aiding and abetting" (p162) was somehow later added to the charge of murdering the agents. Yet, during one of the many appeals (one dealing with this specific issue in 1993), the appeals court stated that "Peltier's arguments fail because their underlying premises are fatally flawed. (A) the government tried the case on the alternative theories; it asserted that Peltier personally killed the agents at point blank range, but that if he had not done so, then he was equally guilty of the murder as an aider and abettor."
   
   Preplanned assault:
   Peltier lays the groundwork for claiming that according to a document obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, the government "...had been gathering in the area for a preplanned paramilitary assault on the Pine Ridge reservation," (p.129) comprised of "...dozens, maybe hundreds..." (p.127) of law-enforcement personnel. The document (dated April 24, 1975) he refers to (the noted "sanctioned memo") says nothing of the kind and related to the 1973 takeover by AIM of Wounded Knee. Ironically this memo was still being circulated around FBI headquarters in Washington D.C. even after the murders of agents Coler and Williams with a date at the bottom of the memo of August 11, 1975. This memo is not even in the same universe as Peltier claims. This assertion was so outrageous even Matthiessen shied away from it by claiming after all his research that the initial shooting at the agents was spontaneous, neither a pre-planned government event nor premeditated ambush of the two agents. "...if there is another persuasive explanation of the location and position of their cars, I cannot find it." (ITSOCH p.544).
   
   Further, it was well documented that when the agents were first pinned down in the open field, Agent Williams made desperate calls for help and assistance over his FBI radio. These transmissions were overheard by a number of individuals who all confirmed how quickly the shooting started, and ended, and that the nearest agent was about twelve miles away. That FBI agent, Gary Adams, responded with a BIA officer, the first two to even reach close to the scene. They were also shot at and had to back away to Highway 18 and await more assistance. In the meantime, Coler and Williams were murdered and Peltier and the others escaped.
   
   Robideau:
   Robert Robideau who has been assimilated and rejected by the Peltier organization several times over the years has made damning admissions. Robideau stated publicly on numerous occasions, and in emails to this reviewer, that he's the one who actually killed the agents:
   
   "As far as I have ever been concerned the killing of the agents was justified..." "They were shot in the head at close range..." "I have no remorse..." "I am "Mr X" (which is no lie) and I did kill them with honor befitting a warrior, but they died like worms." "I thought I already told you that I killed the agents."
   
   Of course Robideau has the constitutional protection against double-jeopardy, but this reviewer believes he is even too much of a coward to shoot two severely wounded and incapacitated human beings. But whether he killed the agents himself is immaterial; the Peltier jury heard and accepted the testimony that the three older Indians, Robideau, Butler and Peltier went down to the wounded agents and murdered them by shooting them both in the face.
   
   Of course, Prison Writings suggests none of this but hides behind fabrications and outright lies to further the folklore surrounding Peltier and perpetuating The Myth.
   
   What it does do however is firmly establish that Peltier did not remove himself from the scene of the crime.
   
   Prison Writings is self-serving drivel and should not be used to document in any fashion what happened that June day at Pine Ridge. Anyone interested in going beyond The Myth should spend some time reviewing the very detailed appeals that cover every aspect of this case.
   
   [...]



5. 
   This book, along with almost 50 fawning reviews, merely illustrates the effectiveness of propaganda in spreading mass ignorance. The reviewers are so sure that Peltier is innocent that the facts don't seem to matter. They would just get in the way, as in Peltier bragging about shooting a man in the head who was begging for his life (heard by four others), as in 15 federal judges affirming the original conviction (not one dissenter), and as in incontrovertible evidence that linked Peltier's rifle to the crime scene. I doubt these people are even aware that six months before he murdered two injured and helpless Federal Agents, Peltier put a gun in AIM member Anna Mae Aquash's mouth while interrogating her about being an informant. AIM leaders later had her executed (gun to the head again) partly because she was one of the four who heard Peltier's boast. Anna Mae knew too much.
   
   Yes, ignorance is truly bliss, but truth can cure ignorance. If you want to discover the truth about what happened that day, read American Indian Mafia.

5 comments about John Quincy Adams: A Public Life, a Private Life.

1. I'm nearly at the halfway point of my mission to read a biography of each President. I would put this bio in the top third of those I've read for a variety of reasons.
   
   First, it was the perfect length. JQA was an important President but was he TJ, Roosevelt, Truman, Nixon, Lincoln... no. Nothing that important happened when he was President at least in a very broad, international sense. I'm very glad the author didn't lengthen the biography and make it detailed to a fault just to make it look like he did more research or overvalued the importance of JQA.
   
   JQA was quite a character. Clearly he was an intelligent man. I loved the way the author talked about what JQA read. In fact, I might even read some of those books myself because as with nearly every President, they gathered most of their intelligence from reading on their own. I liked the fact that the author included all the info about JQA's literary, research and professorship.
   
   I didn't get the point of how the author pointed out JQA's schedule so often, when he got up, what he did all day, that got a bit old.
   
   Other than that, it was really a great biography that shed a lot of light on this man.
   
   A few things I found interesting about JQA that the author did a good job detailing.
   
   1. Abigail and John Adams really put a lot of pressure on their son. That was very apparent and made JQA a sympathetic person at times.
   
   2. JQA was a stick in the mud a lot of times so it is easy to see why a lot of people didn't like him. It also explains why his presidency isn't held in such high regard. I thought it very telling that on Andrew Jackson's deathbed JQA was very uncomplementary. I would've hated to cross him.
   
   3. And perhaps this is the most interesting. JQA couldn't rise above the pressure that was put on him by his parents. He passed that pressure on to his kids, causing one to kill himself. Of course, I do think he mellowed as he got older which the author detailed allowing him to become a sympathetic figure again.
   
   Lastly, how about the fact that JQA died pretty much in congress. Wow, what dedication.
   
   Good bio that I would recommend.



2. A fine biography about America's most important second generation citizen. Nagel manages the tricky balancing act of covering the relevant topic without overstaying his welcome with everything and the kitchen sink. Nagel also earns due credit for resisting, for the most part, the urge to apply today's psychological interpretations to the mind and motives of a man who lived two hundred years ago. Discussion is important but speculation is just that. It also helps Nagel's cause that JQA led a pretty uncontroversial life.
   
   A great legislator and a (by his own admission) below average President, JQA proved his mettle as a Secretary of State and congressman. The only President to return to congress, he fought vehemently for abolition and civil liberties. He even died on the job. How's that for service to the nation.
   
   If the personal aspect of the biography seems underwhelming, perhaps that is due to the subject's relative colorlessness. A staid, serious individual who may have even suffered from mild depression, JQA lived his entire life as his father's son. Hard to live up to a man revered around the world as a living or recently deceased god. JQA lived a very quiet, serious life for a public figure.



3. A great biography on John Quincy Adams. The author thoroughly went through everything from childhood to death. He was able to describe him very well. I liked hearing about his various government jobs and living in Europe. I only have a minor nitpick the author should have sticked with refering to him as JQA instead of rotating from JQA, John and Adams given his famous father it would have been better to stick with just JQA. Other that it was a great biography.



4. So much revolves in the live of JQA in terms of his parents. Yes he did benefit from their guidance, but most of his life was in an aspect of difference. He did get many political positions because of the Adams heritage but he wore that as a crown of thorns. Though he relished his father JQA was always fighting his mother on so many issues. Abigail Adams was the worst person to follow in these times. If she could not control something she would destroy it. And she desired to destroy her son in both his love for Louisa his wife and his career plans. I do not know for the life of me why feminists have embraced this woman. She was in error so many times and suffocated her children.
   
   JQA rose above her admonitions and grew as a human being who was interested in letters and thoughts. He never turned back from her protests. He was about thought and not about control. Louisa, his wife was a wonderful match. She encouraged his interests and got him to follow her interests as well. Adams lived during a very changing environment. It was in this time that slave and free states became important. It was no longer about what Massachusetts said, things were perculating on national issues. He understood that. His presidency albeit dereft of many accomplishments, tried very hard to rid America of the leftovers of the War of 1812. He wanted a national vision. AQnd he was scolded by Jackson, Clay, and many others who wanted his office.
   
   Adams had it all. He had a wonderful and brilliant wife in Louisa, He had a family pedicree who served him well. But he had a one term presidency. He was looked at as a dour and sour personality. Yes that was true in his latter years but not so as a young man. Adams knew his place in time and he knew he had to do meanially things for the benefit of the republic. Very much like Truman, his decisions were linked to what others did before. So he never got to do the things he wanted.
   
   This man has been so tarred and relegated to the ashbin of history. That is not right. He did the best he could with what he had to work with. God bless JQA. He made America a better place to be. And also a hurrah for Louisa who really did much to set out what first ladies need to be.



5. John Quincy Adams: A Public Life, a Private Life is a very good read. Its easy to understand. The author manages to keep my interest by his writing style. You don't have to have a masters degree to read this book.
   After reading this book, one will have a better informed idea of JQA's life. Overall I felt that the book was a little brief and should have dug a little deeper, but there is only so much you can say in 427 pages. Another 300 pages would have allowed the auther to dig a little deeper in the life and presidency of John Quincy Adams. That being said, I highly recommend this book.

5 comments about Pure Goldwater.

1. Let me state from the get go that I am a Senator Goldwater and President Reagan style Republican.
   
   What I think this books value is in 2008 is how it sheds alot of light on Senator Hillary Clinton who was a Goldwater girl as well as Senator John McCain who in his pre 2008 years was more Goldwater minded than most people know. But he has gone off course so badly and isnt the same open honest straight talking express man he once was.
   
   Also of interest to me was how Libertarian minded Senator Goldwater was and not the conservative Republican of recent years which is right wing Christian close minded mode. I say this as a Christian who is Goldwater mode.
   
   This is a book that anyone interested in sanity, smaller government, and Constitutional law should read. Sadly so many people probably see Goldwater as some right wing zealot. Thats President G. W. Bush, not Senator Goldwater.



2. What a Gem! Honest, thought-provoking, riveting and well-written. Pure Goldwater gives an insightful look at an important time in history. Entertaining and politically relevant during this election year. Conservatives will love it, and so will just about everyone else.



3. For those of us of a certain age, Barry Goldwater was the prickly candidate for president in 1964, whose "extremism in defense of liberty" speech turned away millions of voters. But Goldwater stayed around long after that and it's a good thing he did. "Pure Goldwater", a neatly arranged compilation of his journal entries (along with some letters and speeches) reveals a much more complex and attractive man than the public got to know more than a generation ago.
   
   The title of the book could not have been more appropriate. Here we see Senator Goldwater in all of his frankness, lambasting presidents with whom he worked, yet revelling in the love of his family, photography, flying and service to his country. In reading "Pure Goldwater" it's not hard to be in agreement with him on one page and subsequently want to wring his neck on the next. He seemed always to be on the cutting edge of the day's events, even when he was doing some of the "cutting", himself. It's fascinating to see him comment on every president from FDR to Clinton and there was much about most of them he didn't like.
   
   Much of the book centers around his relationship with Richard Nixon and the trials and tribulations of Watergate and perhaps the most intriguing part of the book follows his recollections on summing up Nixon's chances in the Senate for impeachment survival. I remember that day well and how it changed my mind about Senator Goldwater. Here was a true statesman rising to the occasion in a most difficult time in our nation's history.
   
   Barry Goldwater's seeming drift to the left regarding such issues as women's choice and gay rights no doubt sent shivers up and down the collective spines of his conservative colleagues. But Goldwater reasoned well and was always practical and this will be a big part of his legacy...a conservative man ahead of his time. "Pure Goldwater" is a pure joy to read and I commend John Dean and Barry Goldwater, Jr. for allowing us this terrific look at the senator...as told through his own words. I highly recommend it.



4. Pure Goldwater is just what the title indicates, vintage, pure Goldwater. How good it was to read about my conservative, political hero once again. This book was a delight to read. Sen. Goldwater's character, honesty, and leadership traits shine throughout the book. You always knew where the good Senator stood on issues - he didn't waffle; the book does an excellent job bringing his noble traits out. There were few people in the 1960's his equal, and even fewer today. In your heart you know he was right then, and he is just as right today. Bravo for such a great book. Pure Goldwater should be mandatory reading for US History students.



5. I live here in AZ and allot of things here are named after Goldwater. Some streets, buildings and foundations. And living here 12 years I know nothing about him! Only that he was a senator. My curiosity got the best of me and I ordered this book (audio book so I can listen on my way to work). And in finishing this book I feel I have a very intimate, honest, and broad look in to Goldwater's life. From the lil notes that he jotted down that were discovered, to whole letters written to and from the president!... It really shook me at the core, very raw stuff. Goldwater really had some simple and firm beliefs that once I was exposed to it (this book), I am now a firm believer. To go a step further, I considered myself a Democrat. After exposure to Goldwater's thoughts on many issues I realized how dead wrong I was on my stance as a Dem. I actually think now that I am a Republican or even a Libertarian (can't believe I just said that). More to the point, I'm a Goldwater believer now. To think, I almost cast my vote down the wrong path, & I am glad that I read this book in time for the election.

5 comments about Indian Summer: The Secret History of the End of an Empire.

1. The charm of this book is its readability. The author begins with metaphoric images of a backwater England and a rich India... in 1600. What follows is a brief but engrossing anecdotal background to bring the reader up to the dramatic events of the summer of 1947.
   
   The book focuses on the people who brought forth the new India, and helps you to know who they were and to care about them. For instance, the last Viceroy could have been described through a recitation of his long and prestigeous lineage, but the author gives a more personal account of his youth and how his father's losses shaped his goals. The reader learns, not of the celebrated Ghandhi, but of the personal man and his effect on his all too real and abused family. Edwina Mountbatten's life as a playgirl gives way to a woman of strong character and compassion. Nehru's youth is well drawn, but the later years are sketched, and the portrait becomes more mythical than clear. Least described of the key players is Jinnah who stays in the background of this narrative.
   
   The focus on people comes at the cost of other areas. For instance, the pressure from England to act quickly is covered but not in a blow by blow manner, The pressure on England from the US is mentioned but not described. It isn't it clear how all the political subdivisions were courted and won over to the new India. Who did the talking and how did they present their case to the local rulers? The issues of the partition are not expored, such that the vehemence and duration of the subsequent riots is not fully understood.
   
   The book's high interest readability is due to its descriptions of the humanity of the key players. More nuts and bolts of how policy was developed and carried out may have created a less engrossing narrative.



2. i found this book very interesting in providing readers with the insights of the transfer of power from the british to the indian government and prior to the transfer of power, the author was able to bring us to the time of the maharajas before the europeans came. there's certainly no innocent party with what happened in india at that time and what resulted today.



3. I enjoyed this book a lot. The writing style is excellent and the story is fascinating. I've read a few books about the amazing story of Indian independence. This one is focused on the personalities involved, particularly Dickie and Edwina Mountbatten and Nehru. As a book about people and personalities, it is more approachable than some of the history books; some of it is downright gossipy, although never in a lowbrow way. So it's very pleasurable and easy to read. Enjoy!



4. A fascinating tale of exactly what happened, politically, socially and economically, during the summer India gained her independence from Britain, focused on the lives (and loves) of Dickie and Edwina Mountbatten, Nehru, Gandhi, and Jinnah. Readable, although detaile, the author could have delved more deeply into the complex personalities of the leading characters.



5. Overall it is a pretty good book. It provides an insight into the decades leading upto the Indian and Pakistani Independence and into the personalities who were involved in the independence movement.
   For an Indian it provides a different point of view than the ones provided by text books in schools.

5 comments about An Unfinished Life: John F. Kennedy, 1917-1963.

1. Well packed and arrived in a timely fashion. Everything as expected. A pleasure to do business with.



2. I very much enjoyed this biography of JFK. It is very well written and exactly what you want in a biography. It has a very detailed account of his entire life, from birth, through school and his travels, and on to his time as President.
   
   My only criticism is that for those of you who were not alive at the time of JFK (like me), you can get lost in many of the pages surrounding his Presidency. The author's accounts are so detailed, that I often found myself turning back in the book to refresh my memory about the many names and places that are referenced.
   
   Other than that, I highly recommend this book. The accounts of his young life (the privilege, the travels, the women) are fantastically interesting. The accounts of his many illnesses were also well done, and news to me.
   
   If you are like me and a big fan of biographies that start from the beginning and tell the whole story chronologically without leaving out a single detail, then this book is for you.



3. Thought that the book was an adequate one volume account of the life of JFK. The author talked alot about JFK's medical problems, more than I would have liked. He could have written a chapter about the medical problems JFK had with his stomach and back and about how the Kennedy's covered up those ailments during the run for the presidency and during the presidency.
   
   But overall I thought that it was a very good book and would recommend to anyone who is reading their first Biography of Kennedy.



4. Robert Dallek is a gifted historian. He is also a complete historian, because he writes extremely well. I wonder if he has ever won the Parkman Prize, because his apparent meticulous research is consumed by the reader with such ease. Of course, because it is Dr. Dallek, I have but one complaint. In the young, Kennedy years, prior to the presidency, the biography feels intimate -- as if we were talking to someone who was right in the house growing up with him -- almost if we were like Lem Billings. But when we get to the presidency there is a bit of opinionating that oftimes goes from historian to editorializing. For example, when speaking of the Berlin Crisis, Dr. Dallek opines that it is best that JFK was running the show because RFK, being a hothead, might have gotten us involved in a nuclear exchange. Other than that minor, minor complaint, (because he is probably right on his opinionating), I think Dallek is great. So is his new title about Nixon, (and Kissinger,too.)
   
   Joe Nichols



5. An extremely informative book. I came away from the book having only a little respect for Kennedy as a man or politician.
   
   1) He accepted a Pulitzer Prize for a book that was almost entirely ghostwritten for him.
   
   2) His daddy helped him cheat to win in elections and primaries.
   
   3) His primary accomplishment as a Senator was keeping the seat warm for the next guy.
   
   4) He, like at least one other President, lied about or withheld the truth about significant medical/physical problems.
   
   5) He appointed his brother to post of Attorney General even though RFK was completely unqualified.
   
   6) He treated his wife with blankfaced disrespect (openly philandering) in public and private.
   
   7) He was primarily responsible for the Bay of Pigs fiasco which made him look weak and emboldened Cuba and the USSR, thus leading to the Cuban Missle Crisis which he handled surprisingly well.
   
   8) He dragged his feet on Civil Rights because he was afraid of losing the support of Southern Democrats. (MLK Jr. said JFK's assassination was the best thing to happen to the Civil Rights movement)
   
   9) He freely admitted his first year as President was a miserable failure.
   
   10) He stepped up involvement in Vietnam without actually dealing with the problem. This forced Johnson and Nixon to make strategically terrible, morally insupportable and after-the-fact decisions.
   
   He was good looking and well spoken. Even his fiercest detractors admit he gave a great speech. He had a beautiful and cultured wife and adorable kids (Camelot). He was intelligent and erudite. He did his duty in WW2. As the President, he meant well but was inexperienced, naive & hopelessly out of his depth in high level cut-throat politics and completely lacking in moral courage. He did at least listen to the Civil Rights leaders and proposed bare minimum legistation. He got the space program off the ground (so to speak). He started the Peace Corp. He stared down the bombastic Khrushchev and the belligerent Castro. He encouraged Americans toward volunteerism and thinking of America 1st and themselves 2nd. All in all, a failed half-presidency with a few points of light redeemed by his martyrdom and subsequent mythology.

5 comments about Kennedy and Nixon: The Rivalry That Shaped Postwar America.

1. Chris Matthews, MSNBC news host, has written a book about the Nixon/Kennedy rivalry. This book is very good at what it attempts to do: an introduction into who these men were, where they came from, and what made them fall.
   
   The book reads more like a courtroom drama than a dusty textbook. I find this feature appealing. If you want a more scholarly work, pass this book up.
   
   "Kennedy and Nixon" is very interesting to anyone who wants to know more about the 60's, the Post-War generation, or the events leading up to Vietnam and Watergate.
   
   The rivalry that existed between Kennedy and Nixon is still relevant. It is the classic rivalry of Caesar and Brutus: friends at first, enemies in the end.
   
   I highly recommend this book to anyone who has any of the aforementioned interests.



2. It is an interesting and most revealing book about how US was changed under these two people's leadership and quest for power. That being said, the universal truth is that no matter how high politicians speak in any country, their ultimate personal goal, which is to attain and retain power decides the destiny of nations, perhaps the world.



3. Chris Matthews is no stranger to anyone interested in American politics, though unfortunately some may be more familiar with the caricature of him on Saturday Night Live than the real Chris Matthews. None of which should matter as far as reading his book, though it does explain the approach he's taken.
   
   The book is easy reading; it's written in decent prose, flows nicely (though there are some unsubtle bits of repetition throughout the text, these are minor, at most a sentence here and there) and is easy to comprehend even if one does not have a hardcore interest in politics. But the reason it flows so well is that it seems superficial in places, and from a scholarly point of view the placement of the notes/sources at the back is frustrating. A good choice for making this a readable and "popular" history, but bad for easily figuring out where Matthews draws his conclusions from. Many of his inferences seem on the face of it to be drawn from thin air, and he steps into the mind of President Kennedy or President Nixon quite readily at times, leaving one to wonder if he has taken an enormous amount of liberty or not.
   
   Nonetheless, for someone with no background at all in the history of these two political careers, the book does draw on a lot of fascinating information. The emphasis is firmly on how the two careers influenced each other. Even if all one did was read the photo captions, that reader would come away with a new and unique perspective on the events of the 1950s-1970s in American history.
   
   The book treats many of the events superficially, however; familiar and dramatic events are discussed briefly (the Assassination of John F. Kennedy is breezed through in a page or so) and others are conspicuous by their absence (no mention of the missing 18-1/2 minutes?).
   
   The largest criticism is that the book is drawn from secondary sources. Of necessity, naturally, since the two main subjects have passed on. However, despite a functional telling of how they became elected to their various offices, we never really learn why. Their ambition is taken as a given and I think Matthews' background as a political observer may have been a stumbling block here; his knowledge of the subject matter, the political world, the reason why either man would do something in a particular situation for a political motive, is so ingrained, he probably sees no reason to explain it to a layperson audience. But for someone outside the political realm with little idea of the very different world that these power brokers lived in, it becomes very hard to relate to the naked ambition of these historical figures, and Matthews does little to help the reader understand why anything is happening. In that regard the book comes across as pedantic.
   
   The book also presents all the events of the era through the lens of the rivalry; the other influences - particularly during the Nixon presidency - are hardly discussed at all, and Matthews tries too hard to make his point that his fear of the Kennedy family drove everything he did, when other sources suggest that other forces were also at least occasionally at work.
   
   Still, there is much food for thought here, and the book should please both the serious student of the eras involved, as well as those doing some light reading.



4. Historians sometimes like to propose a theory and then find facts that support only that theory. One could argue that Chris Matthews (of Hardball fame) did that here. It is interesting, however, to view post-war American history through only one lens. Sure, other facts are removed and only a simplified perspective emerges but that doesn't mean the facts are wrong.
   
   I found many of Matthews anecdotes interesting and, frankly, learned a few things. I knew that Nixon and Kennedy both came to Congress in the same year, 1947. They landed on the same committee in the House, a mixed-up pair that had many of the same ideas, outlooks, and ambitions. They both saw communism as the global threat it was back in the early days of the Cold War. They conversed in each other's offices, as they were across the hall from each other, even when Nixon was VP and Kennedy in the Senate. During Nixon's 1950 run for the U. S. Senate, JFK hand delivered a check from Joe Kennedy, Sr., an incident JFK denied in his 1960 presidential race.
   
   So wrapped up in their intertwined stories that the 1960 presidential race that pitted the two men against each seemed almost destined by fate. Two friends, two allies, fighting for the same chair. Matthews describes the presidential debates of 1960 in fine detail. What I failed to realize was that there were four debates that year but it is the first that everyone remembers. A sad fact that emerges in the 1960 race was the friendship that died. JFK was first to brush off Nixon's friendship and it was Nixon who followed suit, years later. Ironically, during that first debate, Nixon was reticent to attack JFK, even being couched not to do so. This from the man who, in 1946 and 1950, unleashed some underhanded tactics of his own. The third debate was unique in format. Nixon was on the west coast, JFK on the east, both men sitting in a television studio, not even able to see the other man. I can't help but wonder how that even made it off the ground. But, in 1960, presidential debates were something new. So devastating were the effects of that first debate (Nixon `won' the other three), seen by an estimated 9 our of 10 households that owned a television, that it was sixteen years before another presidential debate occurred. LBJ, in 1964, learned the lesson of Nixon's failings in 1960s and, you know, in 1968 and 1972, Nixon would never debate. (For a nice overview of presidential debates, go to the website "The Great Debate and Beyond: The History of Televised Presidential Debates" with photos and footage.)
   
   As the story progresses, irony begins to emerge. The way Matthews presents this history, it's somewhat difficult to see how the Nixon hatred emerged. Sure, Matthews takes pains to note Nixonian tactics in 1946 and 1950 as paving the way for Nixon vitriol from the press as well as the man's own animosity right back at them that crystallized in his having to give the 1952 "Checkers" speech. But this hostility seems just seems to emerge. It's certainly a cause for further research. Moreover, it was amusing to read about the college-prank-like tricks played on Nixon by various Democratic operatives. One involved a guy who managed to join Nixon's team and sabotaged a Nixon speaking engagement at a local California college. The operative managed to reserve a huge room but invited no one. The pictures made many laugh, including JFK back in Washington.
   
   And it's true that JFK employed similar shenanigans, mainly involving his father's money. But, once both JFK and Nixon became president and had the power of the Oval Office behind them, pranks become something more. Both men welded that power but Nixon was the one who took it over the top and got caught. JFK, LBJ, and Nixon all had tapes recording conversations in the White House. And, I assume, every president since has had some way of recording the day-to-day activities of their administration. It's great for historians but somewhat damning for the occupants for they and their operatives cannot gloss over cold hard facts.
   
   I listened to the audio version of this book, read by Nelson Runger. Runger is one of the best readers of non-fiction out there. In an amusing way to enliven the recording, Runger affects a Kennedy or Nixon accent whenever Matthews quoted directly from either man. It's not distracting and, actually, helped the reading. It was interesting, however, to see how the Massachusetts accent changed from John to Robert to Edward Kennedy. Runger also read John Adams as well as Founding Brothers. His rich voice really brings these historical figures to life. Runger is to the point now where I'll listen to almost anything he reads.
   
   Many academics lambaste works like Matthews book as popular history. Some even criticize him for using only one frame of reference and throwing out extraneous details that don't conform to the set frame. These would be the academics who write impenetrable books that only other academics read and review. The American populace has, in many ways, lost its sense of history. Too many gym teachers who `teach' history as merely a series of dates have driven the life from history and truly made it the boring story of dead people. Popular histories like Kennedy and Nixon strive to bring these dead people alive again for a new generation of readers. True, the book reads like a novel but aren't some of the best stories ever told those accounts of real-life heroes? If it takes a popular work of non-fiction like Kennedy and Nixon or an HBO miniseries on John Adams to get people to learn about history, so be it. At least history and the spirit of those that came before will emerge--the good and the bad, the triumphs and the mistakes--and, hopefully, say something to future generations. (excerpted from http://scottdparker.blogspot.com)



5. This book ties in perfectly with Theodore Whites 'The Making of the President 1960.' The recently Ted Sorenson published book on JFK should be read in conjunction with Matthews book. It is too bad that this book has seemed to become lost in today's world. This book should be used in classrooms and by book clubs in order to show how modern political America has been shaped by the Kennedy-Nixon rivalry and its historic outcome.

5 comments about Simon Bolivar (Simon Bolivar): A Life.

1. A thorough, scholarly review of the life of Bolivar. A little detailed for the light reader, but it is doubtful that much is missing from the story of the life of this patriot.



2. It is applaudable that Lynch has written the first major English biography of Bolivar in five decades, and it is evident that Lynch knows, and greatly admires, Simon Bolivar. Lynch's extensive research into the life of Latin America's greatest Liberator provides a wealth of information that one is hard pressed to find anywhere else.
   
   However, unlike Gabriel Garcia Marquez's, "The General in His Labyrinth," John Lynch writes a biography that is stilted and reads like a textbook: names, dates, places, events, etc. Never does Lynch help you understand the power of Bolivar's dynamic and engaging personality. Unlike Gabriel Garcia Marquez, whose writing breaths life into the dead hero, Lynch preforms an post-mortem examination, identifying part and problems but never resurrecting the great man.
   
   All students of South America should read John Lynch's biography, but also, follow up this textbook with the masterful "The General in His Labyrinth". Conditionally Recommended.



3. I am a Japanese writer and a English-Japanese translator. I was reading
   J.J. Rousseau in 1970s in Tokyo University. I read then Peter Gay's " The Enlightennent" series, and afterwards D.B.Davis's trology of American
   History. In my thought, there is always common standerds of humanity. What
   are thoses? Which are those? Can the language system of Human rights and
   Discriminations recover the Humanity as a whole?
   I am in a deep sorrow now. You must not fight in other countries.



4. Most of the time, when Hugo Chavez gives his long, boring, brainwashing and finger pointing speeches on National TV, behind of him there is a painting of Simon Bolivar. One thing is sure, it is not Bolivar's fault to be misused and distorted that way and you can realize that by reading these pages, perhaps a dense book, well researched biography of the Liberator. I was not familiar with the story of the Liberation of Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and the invention of Bolivia, but despite the high quantity of information, I consider this book a good reading, especially the last paragraph of the book. It was not an easy task, considering that before fighting the Spaniards, the New Granadians fought each other in a civil war -- this is like a joke, but it was mainly because of the composition of the population, several races like whites, pardos, indians, mulattos and blacks, each one with resentments againts each other. Bolivar was undoubdetly a great figure in Latin America History, he was loved but also hated, he was able to Liberate Countries from the Spaniards but he couldn't find the right political structure for this difficult Latin America, and you can see that even today, especially in Venezuela and Bolivia.



5. I haven't finished the book yet but I love it so far. I doesn't get stucked in irrelevant details but it does give a good picture of the environment of Venezuela at independence times. I hardly think there was a man as Bolivar with such deliverance, driving force, genius and love for his country and all the slaved americas.