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 Baruch: My Own Story.

1. This book is the best autobiography that I have ever read. Baruch, the Wall Street financier and advisor to Presidents Wilson through Truman, lived an amazing life. Unlike many autobiographies, which are written with an eye to aggrandizement, this one accurately portrays Baruch as a decent humanitarian that did not let his success and power go to his head. There are no intimations here (or elsewhere) that Baruch was dishonest or untrustworthy, and he served in many public service capacities without pay. Baruch writes about his friendships with guys like John "Bet a Million" Gates and "Diamond" Jim Brady. As an investor, I was impressed about how Baruch was able to write about his early failures in the market and was steeled by the fact that he made so many mistakes in his youth but was undeterred on the path to wealth. This book was so good I read it in one day.



2. A fantastic writer, a brilliant business leader and judicious statesman. Bernard Baruch's explanation of the background and definition of the term speculator in chapter IX, is one of the finest pieces of business mentorship and insight available in print. He believes it is an ability of priceless value in human affairs, especially the need to act in time. Practical wisdom in any age.



3. This biography is a great read for anyone interested in this great man who counseled presidents and was associated with Winston Churchill. It is interesting in showing how far ahead of his time Mr. Baruch was in not only stock speculating but also discrimination and economics. He was a millionaire in his early thirties after a few good runs in the stock market and devoted the remainder of his life serving the public and helping the U.S. when WWI and WWII. If you are reading it for only his advice on stocks just read chapter XIX My investment philosophy. It is one of the greatest chapters you will find anywhere on successful stock speculation. He will explain to you that economic conditions do not drive prices, peoples perceptions do. Cut your losses fast. Sell your worst performers keep your best. Know what you are investing in. You can only truly learn the rules of stock trading by experiencing the losses personally. Here is a summary of his 10 rules summarized:
   
   1. Only speculate if you can do it full time.
   2. Ignore inside information and tips.
   3. Have a complete understanding of a companies fundamentals before you buy the stock.
   4. Don't try to buy bottoms or sell tops.
   5. Cut your losses quickly.
   6. Focus on and buy only a few stocks.
   7. Review and update your investments periodically for changes.
   8. Study your tax position to know when to sell at greatest advantage.
   9. Never invest all your funds. Keep a reserve.
   10. Stick to the field you know best in investments.
   
   Chapter 19 is a must read for all serious stock traders.



4. You may not agree with many of his philosophies on life, markets or politics. Like Soros, he wasn't a supporter of uncontrolled laissez faire capitalism. He was a disciplined man who espoused discipline and control in public and private affairs.
   
   I was drawn to this memoir through the mention of Baruch by Jim Rogers (who founded the Quantum fund with Soros) in an interview two decades back. Then at another place i had heard he sold off his stocks in 1929, just before the big break, when a shoe-polish boy gave him a tip.
   
   Who was Baruch? One of the most successful men in speculation and politics in his time - a wall street partner at 25, a millionaire at 30, a statesman by 50. A very rational observer, he trusted his own judgement above all else. There are many lessons for the trading/investing mind. The one i liked the most was his insistence on never trusting inside information above one's own rational judgement.
   
   This is a fabulous book written by a great man in his closing days. A man who was as big a success in public life as he was in his private.



5. Bernard Baruch ranks up there with the Morgans, Rockefellers, Rothschilds, Warburgs, Thomas Ryan, etc, in the cutthroat world of business and securities. This brilliant individual found himself rubbing elbows with all of these men along with Presidents, congressmen, senators, rich and powerful elite of the U.S., and Foreign leaders like Winston Churchill. His writing is highly entertaining with insights into the mind of one of the greatest investors the U.S. has ever witnessed. It is one of the greatest books I have ever read, and is a staple for anyone who wants to learn not only what it takes to be a player in this arena, but also the pitfalls many inexperienced and some experienced investors have fallen into. He is a truley enlightened individual who prides himself on taking advantage of the panic behavior found within human beings. This book is for people interested in power, wealth, and speculation in the stock market.

5 comments about Write It When I'm Done: Remarkable Off-the-record Conversations With Gerald R. Ford.

1. Who ever knew that Gerald Ford could be so interesting? I read over 70 pages in just the first day I got it and did not want to put it down. This is not a straightforward biography for a change-there are plenty of those out there. This is personal insight into a man that rarely let us see that side of him. He was a man of good morals, was extremely intelligent, and if you can get past the whole Nixon pardon, he really did deserve a second term in office. Even though his presidency was short, those were some very interesting times and Gerald Ford was a big part of bringing the country back together after Watergate and Vietnam. It is great to have the authors perspective of traveling with him for so many years and interviewing him, and even building a friendship with President Ford. You feel like you are along for the ride. I am glad I purchased this as it is a totally different kind of political book than anything else I have ever read. It is an easy and quick read, and I HIGHLY recommend it to anyone interested in US history and/or the Office of The President. My only wish was that it was longer- did not want to get through it so quick !!!!



2. I dove in to this book expecting new and exciting revelations only to find.. not so much. Yes, it was interesting to learn what Jerry Ford really thought about his fellow Presidents (especially Reagan), but where are the bombshells?
   
   It was obvious that Mr. DeFrank admired Mr. Ford greatly. I too remember the healing effect Ford had on the country after Watergate and admire him. However, this author did not have enough material for an entire book. Redundancies abound. The same sentence often appears in different chapters. His description of the pivotal meeting with (then) Vice President Ford appears verbatim several times throughout the book.
   
   If this had been an article in a magazine, I could have rated it higher. Even without any real revelations.



3. Like many baby boomers,I was grateful Gerald R. Ford was there when the nation needed him. After the god-awful Watergate mess revealed a President at his worst, it was comforting to have Ford, a man widely liked and respected, assume the Presidency. Ford's reputation as an earnest, unpretentious and decent individual able to laugh at himself survived and even thrived in subsequent years when compared to those who followed him into the White House. That image is borne out in WRITE IT WHEN I'M GONE, Thomas DeFrank's touching memoir based on years of private interviews with Ford. DeFrank's book gives us a much deeper and illuminating portrait of both the man and the politician.
   
   While Ford's take on the American political scene from the 1970s on made for interesting reading and confirms him as an astute analyst, I was much more taken with the insights on the man. Though he loved politics and was an ardent spokesman for the Republican Party, Ford's values and innate courtesy caused him to be circumspect in his public comments. Unlike today's slash-and-burn politicians, Ford viewed his Democratic colleagues as friendly adversaries worthy of respect. If he had critical or harsh views of others, he kept them largely to himself...that is until he talked with DeFrank.
   
   Over the course of the book's 250 pages, I grew to like and admire Ford far more than I had in the past; the Nixon Pardon still rankles! DeFrank shows us a normal guy who loved to laugh and toss down a few with the boys; a genuine and genuinely kind man who never lost the common touch; a straightforward, old-fashioned ex-football jock appalled by the underhanded machinations of various politicos; a devoted family man who never cheated on his wife. Yet Ford has his moments of anger and pique as documented in the book. Likewise DeFrank doesn't shy away from some questionable aspects of Ford's life such as his merchandising of himself after he left the Presidency. After all is said and done though, you like Jerry Ford; reading of the decline of such a gregarious, active individual in the closing chapters is hard. He was a good man.
   
   Though I enjoyed DeFrank's book, I thought it could have been more tightly edited. Various redundancies occurred throughout the book.
   
   Whether you're a Jerry Ford fan or not, you'll want to read WRITE IT WHEN I'M GONE. It offers an unvarnished look at the unique life of a kind and decent man who gave America hope and stability during the worst of times. Historians will have the final say on Gerald R. Ford but, for me, I can only echo DeFrank's closing line: 'Thank You, Mr. President.'



4. A very good book of Ford related memories. Excellent photos inside. The passages read very smoothly here.



5. Write it when I'm gone caught my eye in the bookstore and i was drawn in by the very well written introduction and the first interview that prompted De Frank's and President Fords relationship. Unfortunately due to over writing by De Frank he proceeds to ruin the entire book by breaking up 30 years of interviews into nice categories. Instead of a chapter devoted to talks in 1993 per say the chapters are devoted to subject matter and have quote after quote from 30 years of interviews which makes the book frustratingly hard to read. That said there is a a lot of personal insight into President Ford's life and thoughts, which were fascinating to read and worth picking the book up, just be prepared for some minor confusion in the chapters.

5 comments about Basic Brown: My Life and Our Times.

1. Willie Brown, the unshakable Speaker of the House in California and then Mayor of San Francisco is one wild and crazy guy. I'm sure his off the cuff remarks and detailed recounting of political shenanigans will anger about as many as they amuse, but for the casual reader this is a very interesting glimpse into the world of politics. I'll never read coverage about the simple passage of a bill again without wondering what went on behind the scenes. Willie Brown was a gift to San Francisco who only expects everyone else to be as proud of the City as he is. PJ Corkerey has done a fine job of capturing Brown's energy and wit.



2. Basic Brown is, without question, the most entertaining and engaging political autobiography I've ever read. Willie Brown is a political animal extraordinaire, and on every page he revels in the intrigue and dealmaking, the pomp and circumatance, and the sheer fun of big time politics. The book is loaded with many memorable antecdotes that not only place Willie Brown front and center in California politics of the last 40 years, but teach pithy lessons about the nature of modern politics. Throughout the narrative, Willie Brown is always right. He's always the most skilled, best dressed, most adroit politician in the room, whether it's in the backrooms and august chambers of the Capitol in Sacramento, or in San Francisco City Hall.
   
   Willie Brown often refers to himself in the third person, and wears his massive political ego on his sleeve. But his prose never gets long winded or boring. And, through it all, the reader gets a behind the scenes glimpse into how a master of modern politics plays The Game. Willie Brown came to San Franscico as a poor, undereducated teenager from the segregated south. Through the sheer force of this personality, and his shrewd intelligence he made his way to Speaker of the California Assembly and, later, Mayor of San Francisco. Luckily for us, he has no qualms about sharing his insights, unfettered and unvarnished, so that the rest of us can learn from the Master. What a terrific book.



3. I bought this book with great anticipation: I read the chapter about Willie's political dates with women who accompany him to political functions. I read that excerpt on NPR. In that excerpt. Willie was honest, straightforward, and scintillating in how he described his working a room while a date waits for his attention.
   
   So I expected the rest of the book to deliver on the promise of that excerpt: to be scintillating, honest, and straight-forward. Except the all other parts of the book are cautious. I had the feeling the Willie is still playing to his friends and because of that, he held back. I was disappointed. It seemed like Willie's caution was tempered by his not wanting to piss-off his friends in case he needs them in the future for some political task. I think the chapter about his relationship with women was much more bold because Willie did not perceive that boldness potentially harming in at some point in the future.
   
   The rest of the book is somewhat standard political fare: master the rules, work hard, be scrupously honest, work for justice, have fun, etc. But that sort of mundane advice is obvious. What I wanted from Willie was his take on how and why and what the system really is to him. How we can make it work for us rather than for Republican lobbyists. I love ya Willie, but the second part of your book is too timid. The book should be read but only after in comes out in paper.



4. I always thought that Willie Brown was amazing, but Basic Brown shows that he is far more amazing than I could have imagined.
   I love the book!
   I originally borrowed it from the public library, but now I must have my own copy. My close friends share my views on the book. We love discussing, laughing about and learning so much from Basic Brown. May Willie Brown stay on the job for a long, long time to come!



5. I am only marginally interested in his politics, but this book is really a great read for anyone. Willie Brown has had such a fascinating life that anyone could appreciate this candid biography of one of the great "movers and shakers" of our time. Willie is so incredibly witty, classy and intelligent. He is truely a great man!! This book is so fun and amazingly difficult to put down.

4 comments about Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher: A Political Marriage.

1. Seldom have two heads-of-state been better matched to work for common goals than were Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. However, neither their personal relationship nor their political one was as placid as usually portrayed for benefit of the general public on both sides of the Atlantic. Nicholas Wapshott's dual biography, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher: A Political Marriage, offers a more realistic look at the personal relationship that helped change the course of world history by so directly contributing to the end of the Cold War.
   
   Reagan and Thatcher, whose terms in office overlapped by the eight years of Reagan's presidency, first met in 1975 at the suggestion of a friend of Reagan's who believed that the two would be natural political allies. At the time of their meeting, Thatcher had just been elected Conservative leader and Reagan had just finished his second term as governor of California and was being pressed by some for a run at the presidency. On that eventful day, the pair found their political views to be almost identical and they forged an alliance, both personal and political, that would remain strong and productive throughout Reagan's entire term as President of the United States.
   
   Margaret Thatcher saw Ronald Reagan as an inspirational figure but Reagan's tremendous respect for her political skills, and his willingness to listen to her and to take her advice on a regular basis, placed Thatcher in the unusual position of being almost an unofficial member of the Reagan Cabinet. As a result, Thatcher influenced American international policy like no world leader other than Winston Churchill had ever done before her. She was not afraid to make demands of Reagan and she found him a willing listener who could often be moved in the political direction that she preferred as British Prime Minister.
   
   That is not to say that Ronald Reagan always gave in to Margaret Thatcher's arguments, but she knew that she could always count on Reagan to give her point-of-view a fair hearing. Together, the two leaders hastened the demise of the Soviet Union by keeping the "heat" on its leadership and by engaging their two economies in a spending war for military weapons that the Soviets could not long sustain.
   
   On the surface, the two seem to have had little in common. Thatcher's formative years as a shopkeeper's daughter, with a religious father who seldom allowed alcohol in his home, was very different from the childhood endured by Reagan, son of an alcoholic father who could barely afford food and shelter for his family at times. But remarkably Thatcher and Reagan ended up with the same strong beliefs that nothing was more important than family and religious faith. Both believed in hard work and developed a true appreciation for those who made their living in "trade," producing a strong belief in each of them that everyone deserves respect and fair treatment regardless of social class or financial worth, lessons that served each of them well in their political careers.
   
   Nicholas Wapshott's use of the treasure trove of hundreds of recently declassified letters, notes, transcripts of telephone conversations and recollections of many who witnessed the relationship as insiders has resulted in an effective political history of the eighties and the kind of dual biography that political junkies everywhere will enjoy. Taken alone, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher would have likely been recognized as remarkable politicians, but taken together as a unified team with common goals they enjoyed the kind of success that the pairing of George W. Bush and Tony Blair could only dream about. What they accomplished by joining forces was astounding.



2. This dual biography details the remarkably parallel lives of two of the late 20th Century's most influential world leaders. Both were raised "above the store" as children of merchants, though Thatcher's father owned the store, whereas Reagan's hard-luck father never did. Both were insurgents and change-agents in traditional, staid political parties. Both were freedom-promoting anti-totalitarians deeply committed to breaking the legacy of Yalta and, in Reagan's words, "transcending" Communism. Both enhanced their reputations for firmness by staring down powerful unions -- PATCO in the U.S.; the National Union of Mineworkers in the U.K. Both furthered national restoration, in part, through controversial, but ultimately successful military expeditions.
   
   Making use of newly released correspondence, diaries and phone transcripts, journalist Nicholas Wapshott mines the depths of the Thatcher-Reagan political partnership. Like any marriage, they did not always agree. And at times, the disagreements were quite contentious. For example, the iron-willed Thatcher is seen upbraiding Reagan in strong terms over U.S. resistance to her Falklands action; Reagan's decision not to consult Thatcher before launching the Grenada invasion, and U.S.-led restrictions on Western companies supporting the Soviet Siberian gas pipeline. Reagan's zero-option nuclear gambit at Reykjavik also drew a stern post-mortem rebuke from Thatcher. Reagan is seen parrying these hot critiques with charm and diplomacy.
   
   Reagan and Thatcher, of course, came to dissimilar ends. Reagan quietly disappeared from public life (even before the onset of Alzheimer's), while Thatcher, felled in an intra-party coup, remained an outspoken, if somewhat embittered commentator on world events.
   
   Wapshott's book is not an authoritative biography, but it does provide revealing insights into the most intimate and successful trans-Atlantic political partnership since Roosevelt and Churchill.



3. Nicholas Wapshott gives us a dual biography of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher and what he calls their `political marriage' during the 1980s when they were the hugely popular leaders of the United States and Great Britain. He shows us their childhood and the unlikely careers that finally lead to the White House and #10 Downing Street. It is interesting to remember that Thatcher's period as Prime Minister began before and ended after Reagan's Presidency. However, Reagan seemed to leave office with greater comfort than Thatcher did. Of course, Reagan was term limited while Thatcher ended up being undermined by her party as well as the accumulation of political missteps.
   
   Wapshott presents their careers and lives in a largely positive light, but does not shy away from criticism. Nor does he favor either Reagan or Thatcher. He shows the strengths of each as well as their blind spots. What the book excels at is showing their friendship and its being stronger than their sometimes vehement disagreements. These periods of confrontation are fascinating. The book bills itself as featuring previously unpublished correspondence, and it delivers these very interesting letters, but there are not as many of them as I had expected. This doesn't detract from the book in any way, but I just thought you should know that this isn't primarily a book of correspondence between the two world leaders.
   
   Were Thatcher and Reagan as important a global leadership team as Churchill and FDR? Maybe not quite, but their partnership during a critical period of the Cold War certainly helped it become a period LATE in the Cold War. Wapshott is not so sure that they caused the fall of the Soviet Union as much as they were in office when the USSR ran out of gas. While I am not a scholar of the period, I lived through most of the Cold War and followed it closely. I have no doubt that Reagan and Thatcher led the West and made things sufficiently more difficult for the Soviet leaders that they did contribute to its demise. And I am delighted each day that they did. You can't point to the way the West has muffed the post Cold War relationship with Russia to judge it any more than you can say that the Cold War makes our victory in WWII less victorious.
   
   A solid, concise, and interesting telling of these two lives on the world stage.
   
   Reviewed by Craig Matteson, Ann Arbor, MI



4. If there was anyone who truly bestrode the 1980s like colossi, it was Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. While they acted upon the world stage, the other nations were forced to deal with them - were forced to react, while they acted. Together they reinvigorated their nations, challenged and defeated the Soviet Empire, and reshaped the modern world in ways that are still being felt some twenty years after their passing from power.
   
   In this fascinating book, author and journalist Nicholas Wapshott, draws on interviews and hundreds of personal correspondences to give a full view of their relationship. Theirs was not the simple, distant relationship enjoyed by most national leaders, instead their relationship was more like a marriage. They shared deeply-held values, they talked out and often fought over policies, and proved impervious to any attempts to set them against each other.
   
   I must admit that I really loved this book. I came of age (politically) during the Carter malaise, and remember the Reagan era with great affection. Plus, what Conservative does not fondly remember Britain's Iron Lady? This book does an excellent job of giving the reader an inside view of the relationship between Reagan and Thatcher, and really explaining what happened between them and what it meant for the rest of the world.
   
   I think that this book does a great job of giving the reader an insider's view of the 1980s, informing and explaining. This is one of the best books I have read in a while - and I read many good books - and I do not hesitate to give it my highest recommendations! Buy this book!

5 comments about My Life: The Presidential Years Vol. II (Vintage).

1. As a Clinton Democrat, I grew up with issues like Social Security and welfare in my mind. I found out more about Clinton from this book then watching him for the last 14 years on TV. Clinton uses easy to understand words yet at some points he uses more complicated rhetoric. A fun book to read and will test what you know about Clinton's term in office.



2. As someone who has written a lot about Bill Clinton over the years I was disappointed by his book. This was a chance for him to set the record straight on both the good and bad in his administration and he did neither. He talks about a lot of the issues but not how he approached them. He talks about what his administration looked at but not what he did and did not solve. He allows Yassir Arafat to get off completely free for his rejection of the Clinton plan the book is very well written and is still worth reading if nothing else to understand Clinton's perspective on what happened but overall it could have been far more enlightening.



3. A homecoming of sorts, as much for Clinton as his readers---it's a weaving together of philosophy, religion, sex, and a deep love of country. Book was not what I expected, but in a word it was, compelling. Mr. Clinton explains the stress in those years in a manner that leaves the Clinton gang, I'm sure, wanting less compassion for those who tried their best to destroy him and his family. That's the difference between a politician, any politician, and a human being.
   
   I too felt stress in those years. It was impossible to find employees--everyone who wanted a job had one. Even more stressful was what to do with the huge surplus of money in our national treasury. Then there was that fulltime worry about Bill's sex life. That wouldn't have been an issue for me had I had a sex life. Then there was all that training and money we were spending on our armed forces who were not out there earning their keep invading oil rich countries so the likes of Exxon-Mobil and Halliburton could exploit their natural resources.
   
   Life has been worry free for me during the Bush years. It's the minorities and middle income whites who are doing the worrying now--about things like where to bury their war dead, employment and paying the bills. I confess, I'm not sure how these people are going to handle the national debt with me getting a tax cut and them without a job. But Mr. Bush said not to worry. What a relief! I'm Bob Miller, a registered Republican.



4. Most interesting of all is reader reception. For some reason, hundreds of readers commented upon the first volume of My Life. Yet, on the second volume, I am the fourth to make any remarks. So, why do people pay such great attention to the "developmental" volume and so little attention to the "consequences" volume? That is the question of prime importance, in grasping how Americans, in particular, have been overly receptive to issues of character and less attentive to more critical issues of policy formation, in the crucible of current circumstantial events. People would rather cling to some indefensible opinion of the man than explore the interleaved nuances of public necessity and private interest that we call politics. [Perhaps, volume III will draw our attention better to the stories we ought to read, of American public values processes!]



5. As a long time follower of Bill Clinton, I have enjoyed his books. Clinton's time as President was overshadowed by his sexual encounters, which is disappointing. In my opinion, Clinton was an excellent President. Clinton gives insight in to his adminstration and the condition of the political world during his time in office. It's an unknown fact that we have only had two Presidents who did not have mistresses or affairs at some point in their lives. As Nixon had to face the music for Watergate, Clinton faced the music for his sexual indiscretions. Both became poster children for actions that neither were the first to participate in, nor the last, leaving their legacy's forever tarnished. Politics is a dirty business and for those who manage to endure the mud slinging and back stabbing, I take my hat off to them. Bill Clinton is a survivor who has managed to shake off past negativity, to reemerge as a strong and trust worthy leader. I highly recommend this book for any Clinton follower looking for insight in to the Clinton administration, as it is a very detailed, honest accounting of his life.

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 Exposing the Real Che Guevara: And the Useful Idiots Who Idolize Him.

1. This book is so bias that it makes books by people like Michael Moore look truthful--and in all openness, I love Moore's books, I find them hilarious--but that's okay, if you can make some clear points and elaborate on them. However, in this book, that steams with the sated hatred Mr. Fontova has for Che and the people that like him and think him a Revolutionary, his points are too broad, and too outward against what is actually known. But I will be fair and show the points that he did make that are true.
   
   1. Che was a murderer.
   2. Che participated in acts of torture.
   3. Che was responsible for the murder of several male teens.
   4. Che aided in installing an egaltarian dictatorship--though much of communism is shadowed on egalitariaism, Castro's views are to the extreme.
   5. Che was not a chivilarous and kind person who only wanted freedom.
   
   All of these things are true about Che Guevara, he shouldn't be an icon of freedom. But the smart person sees him as one for Revolution. He was a revolutionary. He was not a psychotic, though he did suffer from paranoia, his acts of murder of the multitude of men that he did kill (quite a lot less than what Fontova has listed, 14,000, more like 4 or 6), came not from a callousness, but from a fear of being overtrown and killed (this is referenced in the change of voice in his journals through the times, several biographies, not to be biased myself, but Che A Revolutionary's Life is one great source). He did not murder children. He did murder boys--teenagers--old enough to take up arms that he felt a threat, or a support of the former dictatorship. He disowned the movement with Fidel after seeing what Fidel did with the power. Che Guevara did believe what he spoke and did believe in what he was doing, it made him a dangerous person, a person that would not stop until he accomplished his goals. He was willing to die for his cause. He was a revolutionary.
   
   I do not like Che Guevara, I think he's overhyped. I do not like this book. I think it's a poorly written, poorly structured, and even worst, poor lies--if you're going to lie to me, at least do it creatively and believably like Michael Moore. There are plenty of reasons to not like Che Guevara, but the facts in this book aren't one of them.



2. If Humberto Fontova's book were not so disturbing, I would call it a page-turner. And in as much as it grips you from the first sentence, it is still difficult to read of the first-hand accounts of such brutalities which, sadly, fill this book from beginning to end. Unlike Jon Lee Anderson's disgraceful and idolizing tribute to the bumbling, blood-thirsty butcher of La Cabana, constructed upon interviews with present-day communists still ruling in Cuba (Anderson wrote his book while living in Cuba), Fontova instead reaches out to the families and victims themselves to tell the story of the coward and mass murderer, Che Guevara. In fact, one of the great joys in reading this book was the masterful deconstruction of credibility he wields against leftist Che biographers like Anderson and Jorge Casteneda. Fontova eerily transports you to the blood-spattered execution wall where thousands of innocent Cubans were murdered as Guevara gazed down from his office window while dining -- a favorite pastime for Che. He takes you to the filthy dungeons where prisoners awaited their turn at any moment, day or night, to be dragged to the stake and shot. He also takes you to the dank, repulsive rooms where prisoners had almost two pints of blood drawn from their bodies moments before execution. This blood was, in turn, sold to North Vietnam as an export item for profit. In short, Humberto Fontova vividly brings the horrific world of Castro and Guevara's "revolucion" into your living room.
   
   Fontova's book finally reveals Che T-shirt-wearing dolts like Johnny Depp, Carlos Santana as well as every other useful idiot stupid enough to don them as they fools they truly are.



3. As a Child of Exiles, I read and had the pleasure of meeting the author, Very Informative book, I did not need to read it to know that this book says what Us "Crazy Cubans In Miami" as were called ,Always have thought about this scumbag. The book dares to Confront the truth, a ugly one not liked by "so-called scholars" and way-left loonies, First, That he was A blood thirsty killer, who sent not just So-Called Batista's Men but Apolitical people who were caught up. Ordered many executions(see The lost city, Read Spanish Book: El Che Mito o Realidad By Enrique Ros,Or See Documentary of same name.)Yet Foolish Idiots like Santana, Rich Suburban College kids who have never stepped foot in communist torned cuba. That the so-called liberator was a mere follower, Was a Spoiled kid and yes even liked the so-called ills of capitalism!.That he was a Psychopath with deep rooted problems(He shot a Dog for no reason), Was a Coward(Never fought on the front lines and did not know military strategy) Never got his "Degree". So The Doctor Was not a Accredited one.and Was a Failure at all he touched included the Monetary system in cuba. Often you will hear idiots say But before the "Revolution" Cuba was a third world country". Was not, not until after Castro and INC. came on the scene.Cuba was one of the most advanced countries in the world right along the united states, sometimes ahead of the U.s.! We had the 1940 constitution, of course batista was a bad leader, but the situation was not as severe as described by "Historians", and NO the Mob as popular myth has it did not run cuba as its own as much one would say the mob ran the U.s. Many things are exposed here.Again, If your A blind leftist this book is not for you. if your apolitical or conservative. you must read. everyone should read a book that does not depend on sources(Straight from the cuban regime!)and from a critical point.



4. Dear friends, Che Guevara lives on two main levels: the first is the exuberant Christlike figure that makes work of his youthful idealism, steps up in defense of the oppressed masses of South America (it is interesting to understand the identity of the oppressor...) and rides the wawe of the world's social emancipation of the '60ties; the second one shows us a man like you and me, with it's shortcomings and naivety that propels himself to the ranks of power and cannot therefore be unstained and saintly. He became a soldier and a commander and a government official during a (cold) war. We all know what this mean.
   In spite of the fact that this book for some reason can be found on almost every page of Amazon - I cannot say the same of the great biography by Ignacio Taibo which instead was 'hidden' in the very last pages - and therefore reeked of propaganda, I must say that the book seems to be the fruit of a genuine research and it should certainly not be ignored when seeking an objective perspective on the figure of Che Guevara. It is evident that the author has an understandable personal grudge with the Cuban regime - a grudge for which he earns my condolences and compassion however, I believe that in a future revision of this work, limiting himself to the mere facts would be sufficient to illustrate his point of view and would prove even more effective in describing the dark side of the Cuban revolution and putting forward the idea that the idolization of Che Guevara needs to be reconsidered.
   I would recommend this book to all that wish to fine-tune their view of that particular historic period. The book also contains an interesting bibliography for further research.
   After reading this book I cannot but agree that the myth of Che Guevara needs to be looked upon critically and somehow a veil has been lifted.
   I would also recommend the book by Carotta 'Was Jesus Caesar?'in order to gain a new understanding of how a person can become the icon of an ideology and end up portraying a set of universal values in spite of their flawed human conduct.Jesus Was Caesar: On the Julian Origin of Christianity: An Investigative Report Guevara, Also Known as Che



5. The author simply fails to make his case. As i read this in a bookstore i couldnt help but feel that i was reading the Warren Report or a neocon apology from the Bush administration. Was Che Guevara without flaws? Hardly.
   But is he the figure this book tries to make him? Not in my opinion. The Jon Lee Anderson bio remains for me the most scrupulosly researched and even keeled exploration. This is crap.

3 comments about Open Secret.

1. I purchased this book after hearing an interview with Ms. Rimington on BBC 4, and I must say, I found her engaging both on the radio and in print. She is a talented writer, whose eventful life--from childhood during the blitz, through her days as a diplomatic wife in India; her experiences as an archivist; and her almost accidental career in MI5 [the old-school-tie male bastion which she penetrated with panache]--is related with considerable charm and humor (essential requirements for being an effective spy).
   
   On the back of the book, under a series of rave blurbs is a negative one by an individual of the male persuasion, whose non-endorsement guaranteed my determination to read the book. And I quote: "The most effective Secret Service is the one which is secret. She should shut up."
   
   Well, that horse was stolen from the barn years ago, and the service that once dared not speak its name has long since--thanks to ex-intelligence officers writing their memoirs right and left--become the service that will not shut up!
   
   Stella Rimington, the intelligent woman who made it to the director-generalship of MI5, adds a refreshing perspective to the male-dominated literature of British intelligence.



2. 
   This is the first autobiography of the first female head of MI5, the UK's internal security agency. It was published in 2001, to a wave of negative publicity. Apart from the politicians who disparaged the apparent breach of security, there were quite a few negative reviews stating that Ms. Rimington wrote out of feeling of guilt at having disrupted her daughters lives by her choice of career.
   Overall the book does not reveal anything about MI5, other than the thinking behind the decision to openly acknowledge its existence, and expose it to more parliamentary oversight, which happened during the 1990s. Ms. Rimington does describe in convincing terms the struggle to be taken seriously, as a female professional, during her time in MI5 from the late 1960s. She seems to have met the challenges with great determination. Her personal life seems to have been greatly affected by her work, though her marriage seems to have been rocky in any case. She lived with her daughters in London, however there were many intrusions and changes of address necessitated by
   The needs of security and the fear of exposure and publicity. There is an authentic feel from one story, where she was secretly meeting a potential agent in London, when she got a call that her daughter was ill, Rimington had to borrow money from the potential agent for taxi fare, cut short the meeting and go to pick up her daughter.
   I liked the book, as I had not expected much information about MI5, and found it very honest about her personal struggle. There is the usual stuff about MI5's failures being public and its successes being secret, and what a motivated bunch they are. I would have preferred some discussion about how MI5 (along with other agencies) missed the collapse of the USSR, did not forecast the IRA ceasefire; however I was not expecting it.
   One indication of the difficulties Rimington experienced in getting the book published is the ending - there is an Afterword, a Postcript and an Epilogue; all in various ways trying to counter the criticism she was enduring.



3. I've just finished reading Ms Rimington's novels and thought I would like to know more about the woman behind them. This book provides an interesting snapshot of the times in which Ms Rimington worked: the changing face of security-related work; the changing expectations of women in the workforce and the ever present challenges of tradeoff between family and career that many of us (whether male or female) will recognise.
   
   The book itself is more a careful memoir than an autobiography as, clearly, Ms Rimington had to write within certain constraints in order to be allowed to publish at all.
   
   I found the book useful and interesting on three levels:
   
   1. Ms Rimington's persistence in seeking promotion within a field which was considered to be a male domain;
   
   2. Her recounting of the acknowledgement of the existence and broad responsibilities of MI5 during its shift from the shadows to statutory accountability; and
   
   3. Some of the challenges she and her family faced in trying to combine family life with her career.
   
   Many people, particularly women who've chosen to combine career with family will relate to the challenges faced by Ms Rimington. Some of us, familiar with some of the events broadly recounted in the book will be interested in reading Ms Rimington's perspective. Reading the book 7 years after publication, it is perhaps difficult to appreciate the negative publicity engendered at the time. Perhaps we have travelled some distance after all.
   
   Jennifer Cameron-Smith

5 comments about Dreadnought.

1. It was the First World War - known at that time as "The Great War" which changed Britain and Europe forever. As the Generals on both sides sent millions and millions of men to their deaths in the carnage which they regarded as warfare, there came about a change in the psyche of the British male - a change which would herald a complete alteration in the way he thought and acted towards those of the upper, ruling classes. No longer would that British male be so quick to use such words as "M'Lord" or even "Sir." No longer would he doff his cap as a mark of respect, no longer would the ordinary police Constable be so quick to "arrest that man" just because a well dressed person had ordered him so to do.
   
   That change in British Society continues to this day and is easily traced back to the feelings of loss and despair which came with the realisation that far too many young men had died "at the front" - even though the war itself had been won and mainland Britain had escaped unscathed.
   
   In this epic tale, author Robert Massie delves deep into why that war occurred in the first place. Every single aspect of argument and behaviour on both sides (both military and political) is exposed and analysed. As the title of the book would suggest, the theme is the world's first great arms race. When Britain produced the first Dreadnought Battleship it rendered all other battleships obsolete at a stroke (including the remainder of the British Fleet!). From that moment onwards it was always a question of who could produce the most new Dreadnoughts in the quickest possible time. Set against this wish by both Britain and Germany to be seen as the world's supreme masters of the seas was a political intrigue which few have been able to commit to print in such a masterly fashion as is found in this book.
   
   In short, this is one of the greatest books of our time. It is also a damn fine read.
   
   NM



2. The book discusses a period in history when British power was at its height.
   However emergence of Germany as a great power disturbed the status quo.
   To exacerbate matters, Germany was ruled by a man who was abrasive,impetous,
   arrogant.Kaiser Wilhelm II wanted nothing but an exalted status for his nation
   under the sun. He advocated that Germany must have a colonial empire like Britain and
   a strong navy commensurate to her status. "Seize the trident",Kaiser said. This forms the background to the naval
   armament race between the two nations.
   
   Both incurred colossal expenditure in building Dreadnoughts. This was a super
   battle ship [huge,floating steel monster] capable of cruising at high speed and firing
   armor-piercing shell at a long- range.Thanks to wealth she could draw from colonies
   London was able to withstand the strain.
   
   Kaiser's scheme of things envisaged a subordinate role for Britain under renascent
   Germany which English pride,self-respect found hard to accept.As threat from across
   the North Sea mounted ,London was forced to end her splendid isolation .Between
   1904-1908 Britain became close with her former enemies : France,Russia.Europe was
   now divided into two hostile blocs: Triple Entente,Dual alliance. As tensions mounted
   Britain and Germany came closer to war :Agadir crisis in 1905.
   
   German army General Staff was crowded by Prussian militarists .These men had no
   qualms in violating in Belgian neutrality: the Schlieffen plan ,how Germany intend to
   wage war in the west.Further Berlin was served by an ally [Hapsburg -ruled,partially
   defunct Austro-Hungarian empire]which was very brash toward its neighbours.Under such circumstances sanity will never prevail.So the
   two like-minded powers fused to generate violence on an unprecedented scale.Sad,tragic
   incident in the Balkans, assassination of heir to the Hapsburg throne served as raison d'etre.
   
   My gripe about this book , the text in many areas contains details which has no relevance
   the subject making it exceptionally verbose. The book revolves too much around personalities.So I liked it only in patches.
   
   However the section dealing with Admiral John Fisher's life was interesting.Innovations he effected in naval firepower ,ship propulsion revolutionized
   war at sea. Also illuminating is author's elaboration of Admiral Alfred Von Tirpitz's
   `Risk Theory' and run down of events leading to the outbreak of great war.
   
   A reader requires abundant time, perseverance to wade through this tome.
   Indispensable read for history buffs.



3. Probably one of the best histories of the period yet produced and - as an important bonus - written in excellent English.



4. First of all -- you've got to have a real interest in the politics behind the First World War in order to complete this monster. There is some fascinating stuff here!!! The stories of Queen Victoria, Bismarck, the Kaiser, Admiral Fisher, and Winston Churchill were terrific. I give it four stars rather than five because the long narrative can be dry reading at times.
   
   Still, if you've read the well-known WWI books already, this is a great read. 'New' history from a unique perspective -- the Royal Navy.



5. This is perhaps the finest, most informative, and eminently readable book on history I have read in 50 years of exploring the subject. It is comprehensive and an indispensable book for those who wish to understand the dynamics of European and world history since the mid-19th century. Dr. M. H. Wilkinson