No comments about There Is No Alternative: Why Margaret Thatcher Matters.

5 comments about The Accidental Asian: Notes of a Native Speaker.

1. The author gives an account of growing up in America as the child of Chinese immigrants from Taiwan. He mentions his awkward teenage years, attending Yale University, and choosing a career path different from that of the stereotypical Asian-American: Marine officer, political staffer, television commentator, and essayist.
   
   The first essay is a well-written, powerful tribute to the author's father, who immigrated to the United States and ultimately spending a majority of his life in his new country. This essay alone would prompt me to recommend this book to all immigrants and their children, Asian or otherwise.
   
   This book is at its best when the author reflects on his own life and identity. However, when he drifts into pondering questions on assimilation and "omniculturalism," he forgets that he speaks only for well-educated, upper-middle class Asians born in the United States. To uneducated fishermen, indentured domestic servants, restaurant workers, and other blue collar Asians, assimilation will be far more difficult, if not impossible. Because the author appears to ignore this and other barriers to assimilation, I have to disagree with his theory that today's Asians are the "New Jew."
   
   Overall, the book was a good read, and I would recommend it to anyone with an interest in Asian-American culture. However, this book is hardly an authoritative look at Asian-Americans, and it only provides one man's perspective.



2. Eric Liu wrote a memoir - he's entitled to his opinions - and he is not a self-hating Asian. Most of our problems stem from too much emphasis on race and race identity. I think we should all celebrate culture (not race) and diversity of culture (and not deny our culture) - but for those of us who feel that we're losing our parents' culture, we shouldn't feel too bad about it - because we're gaining another culture or developing a new kind or blend of culture (1.5 generation, etc.). Eric Liu mainly explores the question of what exactly Asian-American identity is. What's the point of trying to put ourselves into a box? It ends up being more restrictive and confining - and unnecessarily so. If you're Chinese or Taiwanese or Korean or whatever - learn to be comfortable with that - and with the fact that you're also American. In fact, to be American should not nullify your Chineseness. If you have been blessed with the opportunity (or the desire) to learn (and retain) your parents' language while growing up, be thankful for it and use it to help immigrants who really need help assimilating and adjusting to life in America. I think the group that needs advocacy is not the generation of Asians who have grown up as Asian Americans but the recent immigrants.
   
   The more important question is why this constant yearning for a sense of identity in all of us? And where do we truly get our sense of identity in a world of constant flux and change? If we fix our sense of identity on our culture, culture's bound to change, too. "On Christ the solid rock I stand, all other ground is sinking sand!"



3. I accidentally read this book but unfortunately found I dislike it. As a Chinese who speaks and write imperfect English, I have read lots of books on Asian American history and memoirs. But I found Eric Liu, while trying to show off his ability to be assimilated and his desire to be accecpted by White American culture, does not really try to understand other Chinese including his own families. For example, when he describes his grandma, he does not show interest in her story and experience and share her opinions, because for what she talks about-Chinese and Taiwanese politics,Hong Kong pop stars, etc., he did not have interest. And he did not speak and read Chinese very well himself. He describes the grandma who has a rich experience, opinion and courage as if she was a mummy, just because she was not well adjusted to the new environment as himself. When Eric Liu describes New York's Chinatown, it seems that he was more American and Americans--it was noisy, "they" looked funny, everything there was exotic...He looks at Chinatown not as a native Chinese who respects and sympathizes people living there, in spite of their somewhat unbecoming habbits, but like cityboy going to the countrysiade for the first time and cried,oh, they are so dirty. "we are Chinese, but we still outsiders", he said. He obviously exaggrated the diffrence between his family and Chinatown people. But if his own family was so elitist, why was he never trained by parents to write a thank you note?
   To be sure, I agree that American born Asians should identify with American culture and be more involved in politics, as Liu sugguests. But Liu is just too proud and pretentious. For Chinese American exprience, I would rather read Joy Luck Club.



4. An essay collection on the Chinese American experience, that seems, by its title, to be modeled after James Baldwin's seminal NOTES OF A NATIVE SON. In many ways, especially in the earlier essays, Liu reaches a similar level of discourse, with broad historical strokes, and deeply literary, informed and informative poetic writing. Insightful and well-spoken words for the Asian American dichotomy of experiences, and includes powerful and moving sketches, most especially about Liu's father in the first essay. Youthful, searching, contemporary and intelligent.



5. Eric Liu presumes to represent all Asian Americans in this short sighted and pretentious memoir. However, he only represents himself, as most of the "Asian American traits" he writes about are simply reflections of his moderate middle class views and life.
   
   Liu seems to be trying to separate two parts of the Asian American identity: the Asian and American sides. Though is quick to defend himself after writing about Asian American issues and stereotypes, begging to clarify that he is not the same, he subsequently attempts to evoke "sameness" when asking other Asian Americans to see things from his viewpoint. I couldn't stand that he seemed to want to speak for all Asian Americans. His advice could have been left out, with only his history making up the bulk of the book, and it would have been interesting and insightful. Instead, it was borderline offensive. He needs to stop speaking for all Asian Americans and giving terrible advice.

5 comments about The Man Who Would Not Shut Up: The Rise of Bill O'Reilly.

1. The Man Who Would Not Shut Up by Marvin Kitman is a meticulously researched and well-written story of an unusual phenomenon. Kitman has a riveting section on O'Reilly's lawsuit and an historically interesting summation of O'Reilly in the world of TV news. Well worth reading whether one is a fan of O'Reilly or -- as in my case -- not.
   
   Barbara Ferguson



2. The title of this post does not refer to Bill O'Reilly--it refers to Marvin Kitman. I have just listened to Kitman's hour long C-SPAN "Book Notes" review of this book. It was in my view a total hatchet job of O'Reilly. Not once in his review did he mention O'Reilly's persistent efforts in getting the very worthwhile "Jessica's Law" (which pertains to mandatory sentencing of convicted child molesters) enacted in all fifty states. Kitman also characterizes O'Reilly as a "cheapskate" yet does not acknowledge that he donates to charity all of the money he personally receives from his website sales of Factor Gear. These are just two examples of why I am bewildered by the previous reviews at this site that thought Kitman's book dealt with its subject matter (i.e, O'Reilly) even handedly. Fortunately, Fox New's O'Reilly Factor is the number one show on cable news. So there are millions and millions of people that tune and judge for themselves if O'Reilly is the total hypocrite that Kitman claims. No doubt about it Bill O'Reilly has a polarizing personality, but the show is very well researched--it has to be. With its hard hitting news stories it has made too many enemies, many of whom are just itching to sue for any factual indiscretions.
   This I do know: after listening to Marvin Kitman for an hour I would NOT waste my time reading any book he has written on any subject.



3. Nice try, Mr. Kitman! How can anyone call this book "fair and balanced" when it was endorsed by Keith Olbermann both on the back of the book and on Olbermann's own TV show which nobody watches? Olbermann hates O'Reilly, and names him the "worst person in the world" on an almost daily basis, along with Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Ann Coulter. Don't make stuff up. Somehow, I doubt that you've ever met Mr. O'Reilly or let alone even talked to him. It seems to me that Mr. Kitman got all the "information" for this book from interviews with O'Reilly on other TV talk shows as well as from O'Reilly's own books.



4. Author Kitman has written an indepth behind the scenes perspective on Bill O'Reilly. This book reveals a bristling, tough, knowledgeable, person,shaped by some not so nice events in his own life. We learn about some of the cruel and unfair treatment he received as a young man coming of age --- and while attempting to climb the television journalism ladder of success. In some instances, Marvin Kitman shows readers that Bill was a major contributor to his own difficulties. At other times his out-spoken candor, individuality, intelligence, talent, high-energy level, true grit, and intense work ethic served as the catalyst.
   
   
   The book is well written. It overflows with past and current O'Reilly capers. Just to mention a few; with Joey Bishop, Keith Hernandez, Mike Wallace, Mike Kinsley, Sen. John McCain, Roger Ailes, Monica Collins, Madeleine Albright, Geraldo Rivera, Levittown, the Marx brothers old house, Al Franken, Keith Olbermann, David Letterman, Peter Jennings.
   
   Thank you Marvin Kitman for an informative book, but you could have included at least one interview with Ms Arthelle Neville, who used to critique Bill O'Reilly on his own "No-spin zone" show. I enjoyed watching that portion of the show. He accepted her criticisms with good humor. Her commentary in this book might have been very interesting.



5. I have not read this book, but in the excerpt I read it stated that Bill's father bought a house on Page Lane and "Billy and his friends were, as O'Reilly calls them, fiends. That was considered the normal childhood state growing up on the streets of Levittown. There were fifteen to twenty kids on the block, recalled his sister Jan, younger by two years. They ran around doing things, creating havoc, from the adults' viewpoint. Billy was the fiend-in-chief, being the tallest and most outspoken." We both grew up in a great neighborhood and there were certainly many kids on the block, but it wasn't Levittown. Page Lane is in Westbury. Our property on Pilgrim Lane backed up to the O'Reilly's yard. We used to cut through the side of their yard to get to Page Lane from our house. Those were the days!

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 The Preacher and the Presidents: Billy Graham in the White House.

1. This book is a must read for people who want to learn about ultimate influence



2. Given the enormous financial and investigative resources available to Time magazine reporters Nancy Gibbs and Michael Duffy, it shouldn't be too much to expect historical accuracy in this biography. Then again, Time has been an uncritical cheerleader for Graham's ministry since the day in 1950 when publisher Henry Luce visited the young minister, then a houseguest at South Carolina Governor Strom Thurmond's mansion, and decided to join William Randolph Hearst's efforts to "puff Graham." Time has a substantial investment in Graham's ministry, having run more than 600 stories about his career. Unfortunately, historical accuracy isn't one of the strong points of a book that is otherwise a pleasant enough read. People make mistakes, of course, but when they tend to fall in the same direction, one begins to suspect a hidden agenda. On the other hand, simple sloppiness can't be ruled out, as when they place Graham at Bob Jones College in Greenville, S.C., for his first year of higher education. When Graham dropped out during his freshman year that school was located in Cleveland, Tenn. The subtitle tells you all you need to know about the story between the covers. The book begins with Graham's rocky relationship with Harry S. Truman and ends with his fatherly embrace of George W. Bush. Those attracted to the preacher will find nothing to dislike, but also little that is new. This is the same generous tale told by Graham's publicity team in countless books, articles, movies, advertisements, TV appearances and, of course, crusades. According to this account, from Eisenhower forward, all of the presidents have sought Graham's counsel in varying degrees, and discovered a deep well of comfort and spiritual wisdom. The authors make mild forays into Graham's political mistakes and spend a long while on his purported close friendship with and later betrayal by Nixon, but the poking is gentle and Graham emerges as an older but wiser hero. The mistakes and omissions are telling, however. Careful to paint Nixon as the agent of darkness, they write: "The beloved Ike, Nixon charged, was `a far more complex and devious man than most people realized.'" Thus they imply that Nixon was even nasty to sweet old Dwight Eisenhower. But this can only be a deliberate misquote. In his book SIX CRISES Nixon actually concluded the sentence "and in the best sense of those words." His intention was to PRAISE Eisenhower. It is important for Nixon to be the sinner because the preacher the authors have chosen to present was supposedly suckered into long-term support for Tricky Dick, and was devastated when he learned that Nixon had deceived him. Much to Graham's enduring dismay, his back-room politicking had been tape-recorded and would come back to embarrass him over and over again through ensuing years. Nor have all of Nixon's notorious tapes yet been released. Graham's support for civil rights is painted as enthusiastic and heartfelt, but his actual record is far from clear. The authors repeat Graham's assertion that Martin Luther King, Jr., endorsed his arms-length approach to integration, without corroborating evidence, and neglect Graham's reaction to "I Have a Dream" in 1963. Graham conducted a press conference the next morning and said, "Only when Christ comes again will the little white children of Alabama walk hand in hand with little black children." Concerning King the authors also claim that he delivered volumes by Gandhi disguised in Billy Graham book jackets to imprisoned Freedom Riders in Mississippi. This is another example of either the authors' incautious research or eagerness to hitch Graham's wagon to King's star. According to Taylor Branch, writing in PILLAR OF FIRE (which the authors cite as their reference), the transporter of disguised books was Rev. Edwin King, a white preacher of no known relation to MLK. Lest it be overlooked elsewhere as it is in THE PREACHER AND THE PRESIDENTS, Graham's nonprofit enterprises have profited nicely from the high profile that presidential palavering has, in no small part, afforded him. While his annual personal income from the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association only totalled a bit over $500,000 in recent years, he enjoyed a well-appointed "log cabin" estate in Montreat, N.C., with high tech communications gear and an indoor swimming pool, a vacation home in the posh country club community of Pauma Valley, California, and controlled tax-exempt properties worth hundreds of millions of dollars in North Carolina alone. Nor do these figures include income from books, recordings and television appearances, and may not include the receipts of the individual LLCs created for each of his crusades. To top it off, he bragged that he "never paid for a suit or a hotel room," though he seems to have preferred lodging in various mansions, both public and private, to the common discomforts of life in commercial rooms. THE PREACHER AND THE PRESIDENTS offers comforting fiction disguised as history. It is, without doubt, a book written for believers.



3. This biographical piece is considerably different from other works written about Billy Graham's life. Just As I Am (autobiography) and other histories of the Billy Graham Crusades evolve into hagiographies where Graham has faults but these are downplayed. This book tries to be as balanced as possible portraying some glaring weaknesses such as Graham's heavily favoring various presidents and presidential candidates, even in public, while not legalistically endorsing them.
   
   The insights into various presidencies is also very informative and shows them in ways that are probably consistent with what can be publically known but with nuances that may have been previously unknown. Certainly other Graham biographies have not entered into this level of detail.
   
   On balance, this is a genuine attempt to present Graham as he really is, particularly in relation to the presidents of the past 60 years. Those who are looking for a spiritually uplifting journey may be disappointed. That does not appear to be the point of this book.
   
   But for those who are not fans of Graham, and would like to know him better, this limited biography is very valuable



4. A fascinating read and deservedly praised, I found this book hard to put down until Chapter 31 on Billy's acquaintance with the Clintons. That chapter had a false ring - a different tone from the rest, that smacked me in the face. With so few comments there in Billy's words, as were heavily used in the chapters about other presidents, the writers droned on and on in their attempt to paint the Clintons as good as the rest. After their fairly even-handed (and exhaustive) work on both the humanity and duplicity of Nixon earlier in the book, I was unpleasantly amazed. Of course, most of the others are dead and gone, while Mrs. Clinton is running for a third term as co-president, and this makes it worse. The chapter sticks out as an effort to rub some of Billy's good character onto the Clintons by association. It didn't work.
   
   Several times during that chapter, I did put it down in disgust, wondering what happened here? I know spin when I see it. For what purpose did the writers, after relating so much that sounded genuine about all the presidents up to that point, think they needed to con readers into accepting that; while we were subjected to an amoral sex offender and his socialist wife for eight years, they were really just as normal, good Christians as all the others. Pandering to them in such a book included the writers' insinuations that Billy Graham supported the Clintons and approved, for example, of abortion and homosexuality along with them, which he emphatically did not. The way the writers gloss over the criminal conduct of the Clintons, a pass they certainly didn't give Nixon, defending and excusing them on and on ad nauseum, speaks volumes. The comparatively few words of Billy himself on that period, when it was he being interviewed for the book, is noticeable, too, in a look at the chapter. Note that Hillary bragged on several occasions what a personal help Billy had been to her, with no corroboration from him other than a meeting in 2005 in which he mentioned "private time". Yet by this point, we know his own self-imposed rules about that. Hillary's stories of "huddling with" Billy are as blatant lies as so many of her other stories, judging by what Billy himself says. But her stories are presented as accurate with no input from him, in contrast to the rest of the book.
   
   In giving the writers license, Billy was too trusting - as he often was because of his basic love for and trust in people. But I was so put off by this whitewash, I had to put the book down for a few days. Later I glanced back through the chapters, because I had also been struck by the short space given to President Reagan's term in the White House after he and Billy had been friends for 30 years. Yes, I was right - amazing how little space was given to those more recent years, compared to presidents before him.
   
   I learned a lot that was new; Carter's dislike for Billy despite professing the same religious beliefs, LBJ's real fondness for him. I was entranced by the new look at Eisenhower, saddened at the way Nixon took advantage of a genuine friendship, pleased to learn things I hadn't known about Bush 41 and the whole family. For the writers to push their personal bias in my face near the end came close to spoiling a great read for me. It is a wonderful book except for Chapter 31.



5. Although I've always known that Billy Graham was a charismatic evangelist, I didn't realize just how spiritual, humble, forgiving, and influential he was until reading this book. Not only was he allowed into the "inner sanctums" of powerful United States politicians and other movers and shakers, but he was also admitted entry into places in the world where others would not have been allowed. At the same time, he cared about "the least of these" and always felt his #1 mission in life was to spread the good news of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
   
   Although he could easily hobnob with the presidents and their wives, he never lost his humility and the sure knowledge that God is in control of our lives. Whether golfing with a Bush, swimming with Johnson, or praying with Nixon, he did so in a spiritual role, not a political one. As the authors bring out, Graham didn't need fortune or fame. He saw himself as their pastor, their advocate with the Father. Presidents aren't as free as the rest of us to go to the Baptist church around the corner or the Catholic one downtown, so Billy Graham felt it was his responsibility to go to them...and go he did. Plus, I learned that no matter who the president was, Graham believed that he was God's divine choice and was thus supportive, even after Clinton's misdeeds and Nixon's Watergate situation.
   
   The most recurrent theme that I picked up is that regardless of what he was exposed to, Dr. Graham remained the evangelist sure of his purpose. Interestingly, however, the pundits and press and other religious leaders all had their criticisms...even when he was clearly doing what the scriptures admonish us to do. They even criticized him for being too forgiving, too conciliatory, not judgmental enough. HUH???
   
   Sure of his mission, I've got a feeling that Dr. Graham doesn't worry about such criticisms. His message is that everyone wants to be loved and that God loves us each and everyone, even the ones who disappoint, hurt, or criticize us.

5 comments about President Reagan The Role Of A Lifetime.

1. This book written by Lou cannon, states that its goal is to examine Ronald Reagan the man and hos presidency in an unbiased view, to d othis he claims that he states both stregths and weakness. However the language that is used and the manner in which it is used makes Canno lose all credibility within thefirst 60 pages. All weakness on Reagans part are over exagerated with unecessarily strong language, and are presented as fact above all facts, where as his strengths are only slightly mentioned and are discussed as possible strengths that can be greatly debated. All in all the book serves as a wonderful example of how a completly one sided view can besugar coated to appear on the surfe as an unbiased one. This technique imployed everyday by the media, is well illustrated by Cannon. This is to be expected however as Canon is a Media reporter and not a historian, analyst or a physcologist. In his writting however he attempt quite poorly at that to be al three. The writting style is also not very compelling, after the first 20 pages or so , it settles into a monotonous tone that prevents reading through a large chunk at one sitting. All in all This book should not be read by anyone that wants a historical view on Reagan or his presidency. However it is an excellant example of nonprofessionalism in todays media and its members.



2. Cannon covers Ronald Reagan in his last starring role in this heavy biography of the man and survey history of his time as President. It is an effective follow up (though written earlier) to Governor Reagan: His Rise to Power, which I also review here.
   
   Cannon has a great feel for the man, spending the first third of the book laying out Reagan's personality, psyche, and personal history before turning to application of what we learned about Reagan the man into how he performed his greatest role. And Cannon is mostly sympathetic to Reagan in this role--he finds him consistent with his personality, his vision, and his ability to represent American ideals. Cannon finds that Reagan was consistently underestimated throughout his political career, but was still a consummate leader:
   
   "While he needed more assistance than any other modern U. S. president in the day-to-day operations of the presidency, Reagan held firm to a core of unshakable opinions . . . . It was Reagan, not his staff, who set the agenda and established the priorities for the major accomplishments and debacles of his presidency. It was Reagan who wanted the tax cuts and the military buildup. It was Reagan, although not Reagan alone, who wanted to negotiate with Mikhail Gorbachev. And it was Reagan, again not alone, who advocated the sale of U. S. arms to Iran in exchange for American hostages."
   
   And in these quotes we also see the Reagan who was distant from his staff, tired easily, and had little grasp of government and the technical issues of the implementations of his visions in budget and spending decisions, governance, and foreign policy. Cannon does not shy away from these problems, and in fact shows how Reagan, both the man and the role, were responsible for the signal failures of his presidency--the failure to deal effectively with terrorism against American's in Lebanon, and the Iran-Contra scandal. Cannon seems to spend comparatively too much time in Lebanon, confusingly tied up in arcane names and actions, perhaps to set the scene for the history of Iran-Contra, which he tells much more clearly and concisely. In fact, as one who remembers Iran-Contra as journalism unfolding daily over years in bits and pieces of newsprint, Cannon provides an excellent synopsis of the decisions, actions, and lack of oversight that became a political, legal, financial, and constitutional disaster.
   
   Fortunately, Iran-Contra wasn't the last act for Ronald Reagan, as he showed his leadership abilities in dealing with the Soviet Union, and Cannon is able to conclude his study with "Visions and Legacies" mostly positive, and always honest. For me, a college graduate in 1982 who entered a world overshadowed by economic disaster at home and imminent specters of terrorism, Soviet Russia, and nuclear war abroad, Ronald Reagan was the President whose leadership and policies made my world and and my country strong again. Looking back over 20 years of history with Cannon's assessment, I can better appreciate the strengths and recognize the weaknesses of the man who still remains in my mind one of our greatest Presidents.



3. Those who read this account of Reagans two presidencies in the year 2008 will doubtlessly be disappointed when they compare the lavish praise for the book with what they actually find in it.
   
   Lou Cannon is a Washington Post journalist who followed Reagan already since he became governor in California. As can be expected from an author with this background, he accurately recounts the day by day events, press briefings, cabinet gossip, reshuffles. His sources are therefore his personal memories, countless on- and off-record interviews with all members of Reagan's inner circle and cabinet. This accurate account of the events of Reagan's presidencies is the real merit of the book for which the author deserves praise.
   
   The lavish praise of the book as the definite account of Reagan's presidencies is however undeserved. For such an accomplishment the author should have focused more on the long-term and lasting effects of the presidencies. Having written the book shortly after Reagan left office and updating it ever since, it has by construction a short-term view.
   
   From today's perspective the extremely detailed (but also interesting) account of the Iran-contra affair takes too much prominence. By comparision other areas are not covered in detail: the Reagan tax reform for example. The whole issue of Reagonomics is also analysed from a journalist's perspective: recounting the contradictory remarks of what others have said about them instead of offering an analysis from an own (economic) perspective.
   
   I also doubt that the book is unbiased. According to the author, Reagan held a small set of firm believes, which happened to be right. But in general, Reagan was totally uninterested in governing if apt at all. He was an actor in the White House performing for the American people the role of his lifetime. Whithout doubt there is some merit to this account. But it is difficult to imagine that such a president would have been able to run one of the most successful presidencies of modern times.
   
   As Reagans achievements become generally accepted over time, we see Lou Cannon updating his book with all these achievements, while maintaining his critical assessment of Reagan as a mere actor. Reagan appears like one of these monkeys that happened to draw wonderful pictures of modern art - at least according to some experts. As was the case with those monkeys, rather than blaming or praising them, one should question the assessment of those experts.



4. This book is filled with blatant lies, half-truths and hearsay. There is nothing credible to this guy's ludacris accusations and slander. If you are a thinking person then put this book down and save yourself the trouble of reading this liberal hatchetjob. But if you believe aliens are stealing your thoughts, JFK and Elvis are still alive and dogs are telepathic then this is the book for you.



5. The second of the 2 part series is by far the weaker of the two books.
   
   First, the second book appears to be written as almost a standalone. It continually rehashes happenings in the first book like the reader either doesn't remember or didn't even read the first book. This gets in the way of what is happening in the Reagan Presidency and tended to get me offtrack. I would suggest that Cannon should not make it easy for readers to be lazy. Anyone willing to read 700+ pages on the Reagan Presidency is probably willing to read the first volume so don't rehash things.
   
   Second, I couldn't figure out what method Cannon was using to tell this story. It jumped around quite a bit. At times, it seemed chronological and it times it seemed more subject based. The only part of the second book that really captivated me was the 100+ pages describing in detail the Iran-Contra affair. I was in high school when this took place and appreciated Cannon's detailed account. I though he was even handed with this account, but I can't say that for the rest of the book.
   
   Clearly Reagan was in over his head but haven't most Presidents been in the too too deep end throughout history. Reagan may have had his cue cards and his talking points, his stories and his jokes, but the President is a figurehead more than anything else and Reagan was a great figure who knew more than Cannon gave him credit for.
   
   I wish Cannon would have spent more time dealing with the Cabinet, specifically those not named Donald Regan or James Baker. He spent way too much time talking about these guys. It got to be a chore rehashing what a bad job these guys did at times. How about Reagan's relationship with Bob Dole, GHWBush, Margaret Thatcher, others... not enough analysis there.
   
   Cannon's liberalism shines through in the second book. I didn't think it was untrue but I did think it was unfair. Reagan was a figurehead but Cannon thinks that made him a bad President... I think that was what made Reagan a very good President. He didn't get bogged down in the details and instead gave the country something to get excited about as we emerged from the Hell that was the Carter administration.
   
   I'm not saying Reagan was the best President ever but he sure deserves more credit than Cannon gives him. Familiarity breeds contempt and that is the only thing that can explain Cannon's interpretation in the second book.
   
   You still should read it to complete the series but make sure you pack plenty of grains of salt with that highlight pen.

5 comments about James Buchanan (The American Presidents).

1. Over the years the occupier of the cellar of American presidents has changed. When I was growing up, Warren G. Harding held the title as "Worst President Ever", then Ulysses S. Grant seemed to vie for a tie. In more recent years and given a more thorough look, James Buchanan now resides there and Jean H. Baker's excellent short biography of President Buchanan goes into some reasons why that has happened.
   
   Far from being the domestic American Neville Chamberlain of his day, Baker argues that vacillation wasn't Buchanan's worst trait (although it was a pretty bad one) but his pro-Southern views were. As a seasoned politician and diplomat, our fifteenth president was arguably one of the best prepared to take over the presidency in 1857. But, as suggested, things began to heat up fast and Buchanan's support of the Dred Scott Decision, perhaps the worst Supreme Court decision in U.S. history, got the ball rolling. Buchanan seemed to be feckless at every turn, managing to alienate his own party politicians with decisions that pleased no one in the end. But her chapter on the lame-duck months of Buchanan's presidency is the best of the book, as it should be. This four-month transition is one of the most important in presidential turnovers and has been heavily scrutinized for decades with the author coming down hard on Buchanan. What might have been done to save the country had Buchanan actually moved swiftly and successfully to reinforce Fort Sumter, for instance? We'll never know, but Baker gives the reader some things about which to think.
   
   On the personal side, the author delves lightly into Buchanan's possible homosexuality and concludes, like everyone else, we'll never know. But she does make an interesting point toward the end of the book when she contemplates the reasons for Buchanan's pro-Southern tilt by suggesting that the president preferred the more genteel southern ways to the edginess of his northern counterparts.
   
   The American Presidents series is terrific and I've read several of the presidential mini-biographies. This is one of the best and I highly recommend it.



2. So Jean Baker judges James Buchanan. (5 points if you can name the other two members of the triumvirate.) For her, his presidency was a miserable failure. This was surprising because, at least on paper, no man was more qualified to be chief executive. Buchanan had personal contact with every president since James Madison. He'd served as a congressman, senator, cabinet officer, leader of his party (Democrats), and minister to England. Moreover, in a post-Jacksoninan period when the presidency was viewed as a primarily administrative (rather than executive) office (perhaps this goes some way toward accounting for the "feckless triumvirate"), Buchanan saw himself as a wielder of power and an initiator of policy.
   
   But Baker argues that Buchanan, for all his apparent qualifications, was too dogmatically pro-Southern in his views, and too unpragmatic in dealing with sectional crises, to be an effective president. He stacked his cabinet with pro-slavery yes men (a cabinet, by the way, which was notoriously corrupt). He pulled strings behind the scenes to persuade a fellow-Pennsylvanian on the Supreme Court to vote with Taney on Dred Scott. He totally fumbled the Kansas crisis, doggedly defending the Lecomptian slave constitution even when it became clear that the vast majority in Kansas were free-staters. And in the long lame duck period before Lincoln took office, when the states in the lower South pulled out of the Union, Buchanan completely lost his head and became paralyzed with indecision and panic, sometimes unable to get out of bed.
   
   Baker, unlike other more sympathetic biographers, doesn't see Buchanan as a peacemaker caught in a tide of unstoppable sectional conflict so much as a man largely unqualified by temperament (gloomy, pessimistic, fatalistic) and dogmatic partisanship to handle the crisis. Perhaps. I don't claim to know enough about Buchanan to evaluate her conclusion. But I do know two things. First, she's presented a convincing case for Buchanan's incompetence and downright shadiness when it comes to the Kansas crisis, and there's good reason to think that this example is representative of his entire presidency. Second, I'd have liked to have learned more about Buchanan the man in order to be satisfied that Baker's characterization of his temperament was accurate. I know that her volume is in a series that focuses on presidential administrations, and so a full-fledged biography would've been inappropriate. But nonetheless, I didn't actually get a feel for Buchanan the person in reading her book.



3. There are 72 reviews of this brief and simply-written biography of a President who came to office with superb qualifications and who bungled the job that perhaps no one could have done. I found the book quite adequate as an introduction to the decade of the 1850s. Causes have to precede effects; anyone interested in the causes of the Civil War ought to have a good look at the events that led to Buchanan's election, and the dismal decision Buchanan made in reaction to those events. Honestly, however, you needn't buy the book. Just read the 72 reviews herewith. It will take some patience, and some tolerance for bad syntax, but it will reveal just exactly how polarizing the Civil War was, and still is.
   
   This "American Presidents" series is surprisingly top notch. I also recommend the biography of US Grant, the most underrated and slandered chief exec of American history.



4. James Buchanan came to the presidency with a wonderful resume. And he failed dismally. This brief biography, part of the well done "The American Presidents" series, tries to explain that disconnect. In the recurring introduction to each volume in the series that he edited, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. remarked that (Page xvii) "To succeed, presidents must not only have a port to seek but they must convince Congress and the electorate that it is a port worth seeking." And "there's the rub" for Buchanan.
   
   His background was impeccable: Pennsylvania state legislature, U. S. House of Representatives and Senate, Secretary of State, Ambassador to Russia and England. As Jean Baker, the author of this slim volume says (Page 7): "Critical times often summon forth our best presidents, and it is worth taking the measure of those presidents who, given the opportunity, failed to rise to greatness. James Buchanan was one of those."
   
   The Democratic nomination for president culminated at the Convention. Franklin Pierce (incumbent president), Stephen Douglas, Lewis Cass, and Buchanan. After some maneuvering, Buchanan's supporters helped get him the nomination.
   
   After his election, though, he ran into a buzz saw: a panic (depression), violence in Kansas, and the horrific "Dred Scott" Supreme Court decision. Buchanan selected a Cabinet that was very much pro-Southern, some of his closest allies were from the South, and he alienated Democrats such as Stephen Douglas. He did not recognize the danger of the slavery issue and watched as his pro-Southern stance split the Democratic Party, enabling the one thing anathema to him to occur--the election of a Republican in 1860, Abraham Lincoln.
   
   Why did he fail so miserably? Unreflective prosouthernism is one part of the explanation, according to Baker. Other factors--his arrogant and uncompromising use of power.
   
   So, an interesting essay on a failed president. I think that personality quirks might be overemphasized in this book. Overall, though, a useful volume for those who want a quick introduction to the presidents.



5. James Buchanan possibly was one of the best qualified men to assume the office of President. Qualifications don't mean anything if you don't have backbone and belief in principles. Buchanan bent over backward to try to please his Southern friends and it didn't get him anywhere. He tried to be rigid on forcing the North to bend to the South's ways. This didn't help him in the North. He defied the will of the people of Kansas and made more enemies. Finally everybody was fed up with this man. The South suceeded and the North elected the Republicans. The Democrats became a wilderness party for the next twenty eight odd years. James Buchanan played an instrumental role in the downfall of the Democratic Party and the United States.
   
   This is a short quick read. However Baker makes it plain that leadership does not develop from experience. A better leader may have found a way to change and compromise so that the United States didn't not go through a horrible war. Poor leadership by James Buchanan.

5 comments about Passionate Sage: The Character and Legacy of John Adams.

1. This book by Joseph Ellis covers the post-presidential years of John Adam. It discusses his renewed correspondence with Thomas Jefferson after many years of silence because of partisan politics. It reveals a picture of a brillant but misunderstood founding father who Ellis calls "the voice of the Revolution" and Jefferson "the pen of the Revolution." A well-written and insightful book! A must read especially for those who read McCullouch's book on Adams.



2. Great book that I shared with friends at Christmas. John Adams, an extraordinary intellectual who, thanks to Joseph Ellis, history has not forgotten. Fascinating, one that you want to read word for word, slowly.



3. Joseph Ellis has taken upon himself the task of bringing the relatively unknown 2nd President of the United States out of obscurity and making him relevant to today's industrial America. Surprisingly, Ellis finds a way to make this shadowy figure between Washington and Jefferson every bit as memorable and important as his predecessor and successor; no simple task, given that Adams was forcibly shoved from the pantheon of American heroes over a century ago.
   
   Passionate Sage reveals Adams as he would have liked: Contrarian in every respect, an irritating mixture of sanguine and volcanic, pessimistic and hopeful, witty and reserved. More importantly, though, Ellis reveals Adams for the master of political thought that he was. No longer is Adams a footnote between the Great Leader and the Republican - in this slim tome, Ellis finds a way to enlighten readers to Adams' unparalleled contributions to Constitutional and American history. As history has shown, few men did more for the American cause than the underappreciated John Adams, and even fewer living Americans are aware of the monumental accomplishments the Sage of Quincy achieved in his nearly nine decades in America.
   
   Though Passionate Sage falls victim to the dry definitions of a professional academic, these drudging pages do not occur with great frequency. However, the slim size of this volume does seem cluttered with pedantic and tangential discussions that distract from the subject himself - ironically, the same slight Adams suffered in his own time.



4. Ellis again does an excellent job of making public figures who are seemingly lost to history real again. While not as flowery and readable as McCullough's work, I believe Ellis' effort to be more substantive. Following only Adams' post-presidency years, Ellis explores Adams' core political principles and beliefs through the struggles and battles of his sunset years.
   
   Through Adams' fight with long-time friend Mercy Otis Warren over his legacy, to his arguments with Mary Wollstonecraft in the margins of her own books, Ellis is able to show an aging John Adams at his best (or worst): outspoken, irreverent, fiesty, and more often than not, correct. The reader is led through Adams' opinions on government, law, the French Revolution, and more. The curious reader would do well to compare Adams' and Jefferson's opinions of the French revolutionaries, keeping "track of score."
   
   I only wish that Ellis could have written more. This book, while dry at times, will hold the reader's attention and leave them wanting more chapters.
   
   Recommended to the general reader who has already read through a full-length Adams biography.



5. Ellis' biography of John Adams, one of the earliest published portraits of the Founding Fathers by the author, is well suited for those who want a shorter, crisper account than the longer ones produced by other biographers (e.g., McCullough). Though it does not include some important material unearthed since its appearance, it honors Adams' essential brilliance and his determinative role in both the success of the American Revolution and the country's endurance while a Federalist president.

5 comments about The Catcher Was a Spy: The Mysterious Life of Moe Berg.

1. I'd been anticipating reading this book for some time, but getting through it was a chore. Dawidoff's writing and research are thorough. Berg left behind a wealth of personal material and many who knew him were still alive and available by phone or personal interview to Dawidoff. Hundreds of anecdotes and details about Berg's life emerge from these resources, and Dawidoff marches them all past the reader. The question is "Why?" Berg never becomes very interesting. It is well-known that he was a mediocre major league catcher. He was not much better as a spy, excelling mostly at running up large expense accounts. His tradecraft was abysmal; making and keeping notes to himself about briefings he received is such a fundamental error as to be ludicrous. After more than 300 pages it remained hard for me to take Berg seriously in any of his endeavors. In the end this is the biography of a moderately interesting obsessive dilettante, whose avoidance of normal human contact except on his own often strange terms seems almost pathological. Dawidoff tries valiantly but a New Yorker profile of about one-tenth this length would have been a sufficient account of Moe Berg's mildly curious life.



2. Moe Berg is truly one of the most interesting, and enigmatic, characters in sports history. What always fascinated me was how, after WWII and no longer in baseball, Berg never worked. He would stay at friends and relatives' homes throughout the country, reading multiple newspapers, and maintaining strict control of those papers. My guess, and this would make for an interesting investigative study, is that he stayed on the OSS/CIA payroll and was working for them, in some capacity: Dissecting the news, dealing with Communist espionage - or who knows, maybe he was working with foreign elemnets. Berg was something. He has to be considered a major hero. Surely the fact that he was an ex-ballplayer makes him stand out from the other heroes under "Wild Bill" Donovan, as does the fact that a Jew was sent to Nazi-controlled Finland to get German scientists. This is a terrific story. (...)



3. Moe Berg was completely unpleasant. I found myself wondering why I should care about his life. He was a mediocre ballplayer, a mediocre scholar and a mediocre spy. His talent was that he was pleasant to be around. Why write a book about him?
   
   Why read about him? I wondered that. My reaction was, "So what?"



4. This interesting biography covers a most unusual person. Moe Berg (1902-1972) was a talented linguist, ballplayer, and U.S. espionage agent for the OSS (forerunner of the CIA) before and during World War II and briefly for the CIA after the war. Author Nicholas Dawidoff describes Berg's mysterious life, including New Jersey boyhood, studies at Princeton and Columbia, and years as a second-string catcher for the Dodgers, White Sox, Indians, Senators and Red Sox. Even as a player Berg was better know for his linguistic skills and stealth than for his baseball exploits. Then readers learn of Berg's years as a spy, which probably began when Berg toured Japan with other big leaguers in 1934. The author describes Berg's secret wartime activities, including his 1944-45 mission to ascertain the status of Nazi nuclear research. We also read of his later years, when except for brief CIA assignments, Berg chose to freeload off relatives and friends rather than employ his superb linguistic and legal talents (he had a law degree). A Overall, Berg was an enigmatic man, and this biography, written two decades after his passing, fails to uncover much about him - perhaps Berg would have wanted it that way. Still, this is an interesting and nicely researched biography.



5. I felt like I was reading the sports pages for the first 140 pages. Too many stats, facts and figures. The storyline didn't flow, the plot was sluggish and languished for the most part. The story of Moe Berg's life should have packed some punch! I expected more pizazz. His life warranted it, but the book didn't deliver.

5 comments about James Madison and the Struggle for the Bill of Rights (Pivotal Moments in American History).

1. The Bill of Rights was always just there at the end of the Constitution -- a list of unalienable rights to be interpreted, argued over and used to browbeat opponents in political discussions. I, for one, never gave much thought to how those 10 constitutional amendments came to exist within four years of the ratification of the Constitution in 1788.
   
   Now that I know what a narrow thing ratification of the Constitution was (Virginia and New York sought to make adoption conditional upon the adoption of amendments; North Carolina and Rhode Island refused to ratify until the Bill of Rights passed Congress) and how difficult the adoption of amendments so soon after ratification, I'll certainly never take them for granted again. Anti-federalist opposition to the Constitution, particularly without a Bill of Rights to protect individual liberties, was very strong in Virginia, led as it was by the able orator Patrick Henry, who dominated the Virginia Legislature during the late 1780s.
   
   On one point the book is clear: the amendments would not have been proposed and adopted without the guidance of James Madison, first as a member of the Virginia Constitutional Ratifying Convention and then as a member of the US House of Representatives. The story of his battle is a fascinating one, from the first use of gerrymandering to prevent him from being elected to the US House (this was Patrick Henry's idea and it didn't work), to the final triumph in 1791 when Virginia finally ratified the amendments.
   
   If you thought dirty politics was born in the current era, think again. I was struck by how much political maneuvering, both explicit and behind the scenes, existed at a time most Americans think of in mythological terms. Our cherished heroes were politicians all, attempting to satisfy local demands while at the same time doing justice to the larger, longer term issues. They didn't always succeed, but this time they did, thanks to Madison's persistence.
   
   I strongly recommend this book for the light it sheds on a period in US history that is rarely discussed. However, I have only given the unabridged audio edition of this book 4 stars because I thought the narrator read too fast. I found I had to listen to many passages two and three times follow them completely. It's one thing to read fiction at a fast clip, and another when you attempt to speed through historical narrative.



2. "James Madison and the Struggle for the Bill of Rights" was a very enjoyable read, and one that I would definitely enjoy reading again. It is full of detail, but doesn't lack on readability either. Unlike some of the reviewers, I enjoyed the details of weather conditions and felt that this information was important to telling the struggle for the Bill of Rights as weather was a huge obstacle to travel in that time. I also was able to better picture what it would be like to sit in a hot, sultry, building with no ventilation (as when the windows had to be closed due to the noisy streets) and spend hours discussing how much power the constitution would grant the federal government or if it indeed would greatly infringe on individual liberties.
   
   Lets go out on a limb, and say that James Madison probably wouldn't make it in politics today. He was 5'4", shy, soft spoken, and portrayed by the author as extremely timid when speaking in front of a large group. He also "flip-flopped" on his stance on the Bill of Rights, which at that time seemed to be democracy working (Today he would probably be eaten alive); Madison seems to not only believe passionately about the importance of a strong federal government, but evolves to believe just as passionately about the protection of the people's individual rights (Thus- A Bill of Rights). OK, it could be argued that he had to compromise and promise support of a Bill of Rights to get elected, but the author seems to feel that Madison truly believed in their importance. The story of Madison is very interesting and even for his time he seems to be somewhat of an underdog whose passion, intellect, and love for his country allowed him to prevail over his short-comings. His election to the House is nothing but fascinating as once again the cards were stacked against him (Thanks to Patrick Henry who gerrymandered his district so that he would likely lose).
   
   The story of Virginia's constitutional congress was every bit as fascinating, and it can be said that human nature and the psychology of politics had many similarities then as it does now. Many people had passionately different philosophical views of what government should and shouldn't be. As could be argued today, both sides had some good points. It was interesting how fear seemed to perpetuate both sides passion. The Anti-Federalists being fearful of a monarchal type of government invading on individual liberty, and the Federalists fearful that individual states wouldn't have economic power or the ability to defend themselves. The author portrays the high-stakes decision of Virginia ratifying the constitution without a Bill of Rights. He points out that if this hadn't happened, George Washington wouldn't have even been eligible to serve in the new government. Anyways, the story of our founders verbally battling it out in a theater in Shocco-Bottom in Richmond is also well portrayed. For anyone interested in American history and politics, I would recommend this book as a must read.



3. I hate saying bad things about other people's books because I know how much hard work goes into each one, though I have to advise the reader of this review to find another book if you're interested in the creation of the Bill of Rights. If it weren't for this book being on audio disc I would never have finished it. It's very boring and flat. The material is doubtlessly interesting, and I imagine that depending upon the author's take on the subject, this book could come out in many different, yet equally interesting, permutations.
   
   My strong criticism it that it is the book has no incisive analysis of the subject, nothing to make it read, no sense of perspective,...how this subject played out in the bigger scheme of things and over time. The epilogue was equally disappointing, offering the scantiest description of how the ideas contained in the Bill of Rights affected future generations. In fact, I was eagerly looking forward to reading the epilogue, it was the only thing keeping me going, and I was disappointed.
   
   So, what we get is just a simply recounting of the events, without much to make the writing interesting. It really gets tedious and boring, sounding like a straight reading of an official transcript or diary especially when the author describes the proceedings of the Virginia Constitutional ratifying Convention and other similar events, which is what a lion's share of the book is.
   
   Any suggestions??



4. Dr. Labunski captures the emotion, immediacy and intensity of the debate over the Bill of Rights as only a journalist of the day might be expected to write. A truly new perspective on Mr. Madison as "vote counter" and "political strategist."



5. I think you have to be very interested in politics (as I am) to enjoy this book. It was a fascinating and detailed look at some of the arguments for and against creating a Bill of Rights, including debates over the extent of state rights vs. a federal government. Extremely well researched and worth the time to read for the wealth of information.