5 comments about Quitting America.

1. Disclaimer first: I am not American. I have lived in eight countries around the world, including nine years in the US, as well as countries in Asia, Europe, and Africa. I think I have a pretty good idea what elements constitute a functional society. America, by and large, is dysfunctional, given how money-hungry and superficial it is. And I also happen to be an outspoken advocate for minority issues. I work in multicultural education. And I am writing a doctorate on a certain aspect of the Transatlantic slave trade.
   
   That said, I went about reading the book with an open mind. And while I enjoyed the well-crafted, eloquent writing, I became pretty appalled by the need to rant and accuse and point fingers at The Enemy *without offering a solution*. You, Mr. Robinson, are sitting cushily on a cute little island close to Mainland America, driving your Honda CRX and making enough money to actually be able to afford the luxury to write such racist treatises. You are having it pretty darn good, and America is funding your life - you do not have to go about earning a meager living on St. Kitts the hard way, like the locals. And you, the Pan-Africanist, have elected NOT to move to The Motherland... why not? Newsflash: Africa, ruled as it is by African leaders, is corrupt and messed up to the core. They pocket Western aid funds to build lavish palaces while their people are dying of hunger and AIDS. Africans commit genocide against fellow Africans. But from the safety of a pretty little island paradise, one forgets that so easily when one is consumed by hatred for one particular group of people. I take exception to your generalizations and simplifications of The Evil White People In Evil White America. And as I said, I am not even a part of them. So, other than writing hateful tirades with a view of making money off of a predominantly African-American readership, what do YOU do or suggest to fix the problems that America undoubtedly has? Running away to St. Kitts is not the answer, Mr. Robinson. If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. And that is exactly what's wrong with this book.



2. I really enjoyed reading Randall Robinson's book Quitting America. I was intriguied by his comments and his point of view. The book is very eloquently written in that I had to stop reading at times to really contemplate exactly what the author was trying to convey to me as a reader. I would reccommend this book to everyone because it gives you insight into a very educated black man's feelings about living in America.



3. ...full of non-sequitors, documented errors, reverse racism and precious few references or footnotes. Look, I can't blame the man for wanting to move to the pretty, pleasant little island of St. Kitts, where the money he earned in America allows him to live like a king. If you're ready to enjoy a quiet, pastoral life with nice weather and a low cost of living I'm sure it's a fine place. He gets royalties from his writing and by now is old enough to collect social security as well, I'm sure it's a great life. But a little more intellectual honesty about his sojourn would have been nicer. Fewer outright lies or partial distortions or technical truths presented without any context, please.
   
   Oh well, I'm glad that Mr. Robinson was able to earn the money that allows him such a lavish lifestyle right here in mean ol' Capitalist Pig America. I'm also glad that he was able to write and speak on controversial topics here in America, where such expression is constitutionally protected. Most of all I'm glad I purchased this book used, so I didn't directly support his new lifestyle with any of MY money.



4. During the Jeremiah Wright contreversy I decided to go to the website of Barack Obama's rascist, anti-semetic, and America hating church. One of the links gave a list of recommended books, and this was one.
   
   It is not a suprise that such a book would be on the website of Jeremiah Wright's church of hate. It is also no suprise that a fool like Randall Robinson would write such a book. Robinson was a fixture on American TV in the 1980s as an "expert" on African issues. As you can guess, Mr. Robinson was always heaping praise on communist governments like those in Angola, and the evil government of Robert Mugabe, who, by the way, has killed more blacks than any aparteid era South African leader by a landslide.
   
   Anyway, I must give Robinson some credit here. Unlike the Baldwin boys, and the other members of the liberal elite, he actually left, making the USA a much better place. If only all the other liberals followed his lead and left the country, the true patriots in America would not have to support all these spoiled brat liberals and have to listen to their uneducated drivel.
   
   I reccomend this book to all the liberals of America. It is a guide on how to leave and never look back. Come on libs.....put your money where your mouth is. Buy this book and follow Mr. Robinson to St Kitts. The weather is lovely.



5. I love Randall Robinson. I teach World history at an all male school for Emotionally disturbed students. His writing is so clear and understandable . My students listen as I read to them (High-school age) and have another perspective on this country they call home. There is so much the text books don't say . I am recommending this book for their summer reading list, as I prepare to leave America.

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 Stalin and His Hangmen: The Tyrant and Those Who Killed for Him.

1. Brilliantly researched and written this is a vital and substantial contribution to the sorry and depressing history of life in the former Soviet Union under the rule of the psychotic, evil Stalin and his miserable bunch of hyena type acolytes. After out scheming and removing the old Bolsheviks, Stalin was able to put himself up as the top hyena at the top of the pack and corrupt his close associates and eventually the Cheka to inflict his paranoiac ideas and schemes on the Communist Party and Soviet Union.
   
   The book commences with the long road to power for Stalin and deals with his early life, the experience of his religious education in the Tbilisi seminary and the ideas he probably gained from it and his Bolshevik revolutionary life. Chapters are then devoted to the history of each of the leaders of the Cheka with details of their pre-Cheka life and how they performed in the top job.
   
   Dzierzynski with the agreement of Lenin and his men formed the Cheka within 6 weeks of the October revolution and was immediately up to his armpits in blood; the period 1918-1921 saw the Cheka involved in widespread arrests, brutal interrogations and mass shootings of some real and many thousands of imagined enemies. Dzierzynski was similar to Stalin with a religious background that was savagely shattered at age 19 in a conversion to atheism and revolution and these two got on well together. In 1922 Dzierzynski swung a half million paramilitaries from Trotsky to support Stalin and was a crucial influence in Stalin's rise to power. He died in 1926 but directed his efforts to combat counter revolution, espionage etc outside of the party not inside, l got the impression he would have opposed many of Stalin's later crazy schemes as party unity was vital to him and he personally disliked fabricating evidence (of all things!) and was not willing to suppress party members.
   
   Dzierzynski was followed by the very able Menzhinsky who during the period 1928 to 1934 ably assisted Stalin to neutralize his opponents inside and outside the party and of course controlled the Cheka as it moved against the rural inhabitants and actioned the grain requisition of 1928 and the brutal forced farm collectivization which lead to the subsequent famine. Menzhinsky also worked with Stalin on the first show trials.
   
   This sorry trend of brutal suppression and misery continues and gets worst as the book continues. Besides the main hangmen this books also presents the history of the other Cheka operatives i.e. the strategists, crackdown and arresting officers, interrogators, executioners, guards etc.
   Many sadists, psychotics and cruel operatives performed the dirty work of Stalin and his hangmen.



2. Joseph Stalin (1879-1953) was Ivan the Terrible with a copy of Karl Marx in his hand. In fact, Stalin (Russian for "steel") was much worse than Ivan. Under Stalin's dictatorship the Soviet Union underwent years of murders; shootings; forced removal of millions of ethnic and other groups; persecution of a wide array of groups:
   (Jews; physicians, professors, religious leaders, non-ethnic Russian citizens, artists; writers; actors; lawyers-you name it!)
   Stalin seized power by ruthlessly murdering his opponents. As he emerged with total power in 1927 "Koba" (to use a nickname) ruled the Soviet Union with cruelty, stupidity and crimes so immense it takes Rayfield 500 small printed pages to describe them in searing detail!!
   Lenin had established Soviet rule but it was Stalin with such loathsome cronies as Iagoda; Estov and the repulsive Lavria Beria who launched a reign of terror on the very people they governed! Millions were slaughtered by bullet, ax or starvation. In the Great Purge of 1937-1938 millions were relocated to distant lands; sent into slavery in the GULAG in the far east or murdered after a short kangaroo court proceeding.
   Justice was absent from the Soviet lexicon under the evil Stalin.
   Stalin trusted no person. He executed those who had worked hard to establish him in power. Most of the powerful men who were vassals of Stalin's whims died betrayed by him.
   On the eve of World War II Stalin purged the Red Army of gifted generals. When Nazi Germany launched its attack against the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941 the Soviets were woefully unprepared. Generals were murdered: Pows returning from German captivity were executed as spies. In all over 20 million Soviet citizens would die in the war. Many of these victims died at the hands of the evil sorcerer of the Kremlin.
   Donald Rayfield teaches Russian and Georgian at the University of London. His book on playwright Anton Chekhov was well received. In this book he shows us the Soviet hell on earth world of sudden death; betrayal; cruelty beyond belief; hatred; racial and ethnic hatred that boggles the mind of anyone with a claim to be a member of the human race!
   Stalin and his hangmen were thugs; bullies and merciless killers of all that is decent and good in the human soul. Rayfield suggests at the end of his book that he fears democracy in the new Russia under Putin is very fragile.The ghosts of Stalin may again materialize in the Russia of the 21st century.
   Anyone who lives in a Western democracy should thank God that they did not first see daylight in the Soviet Union in the black days of Stalin and his cruel cronies.
   Rayfield's book is well written. Though he is a scholar the book can be
   read by one who has little familiarity with the history of this sad chapter of human history (the chapter on the Katyn Forest of Polish officers is just one case among countless tales told in the book which will break your heart). Stalin killed women, children, the old and the poor, the wealthy and the smart. He was an indiscriminate murderer of all he feared in his paranoic isolatiion inside tall Kremlin walls. He also was adept at turning people against one another. Several cases are related where a husband would volunteer to murder his own wife if this was the ukase ultimatum from Stalin which would prove the man's loyalty!
   As one who has read several books on Stalin I would give this book five stars. Every page has something to shock the reader. We should know what Stalin did as we honor his millions of helpless victims.



3. This simply a very well written book.
   
   The author doesn't write in a dry and detached way. He allows his righteous hate for these killers to shine through.
   
   Too often, Hitler's equal has been given relative scant attention for the tens of millions of lives ruined and for the millions actually murdered.
   
   The left, AKA academia has had a difficult time coming to grips with what the Soviets were. It truly was an evil empire and Stalin ruled it at its zeneth.
   
   Also well covered all many of the people who helped Stalin achieve what he did. If there is anything to be enjoyed, it's the justice that most ended up being victims themselves, often tortured and killed by the very underlings they trained and it done so in locations they established.
   
   Again, this book is written with the outrage and hate towards these people that is long overdue. If Hitler and his camp deserve their own hell, and they do, the author of this book makes the case for Stalin and his Hangmen.



4. Of all the historical villains of the 20th century I consider Josef Stalin as the greatest villain of all -- yes, even greater than Adolf Hitler. He is also one of the most fascinating characters of the 20th century. Stalin was a master bureaucrat who quietly and methodically finagled himself into a supposedly mundane unglamorous position within the Communist Party and turned it into his ticket to the top by defeating supposedly greater party leaders than himself -- first relegating them to lesser roles, then ushering them out of the party, and eventually eliminating them permanently.
   
   "Stalin and His Hangmen" is a brilliant compilation of his "achievements" and how he accomplished what he accomplished. It tells of how he manipulated the party and how his secret police brought grief to the country. What is perhaps most fascinating to me about his reign of terror is how he got away with it. The individuals he surrounded himself with knew what was happening, how it was happening, and that they too were apt to be victims of his terror. Yet they appeared powerless to save themselves until Stalin's own end in 1953. Small wonder that his immediate entourage were slow to call for medical assistance when they found him incapacitated by a stroke in March 1953.



5. Celine once said that the biggest defeat in life was to die without realizing how rotten people can be. In this sense, if none other, few of the victims of Stalin's reign of terror could have died in vain. Donald Rayfield's *Stalin and His Hangmen* offers exhaustive and well-documented proof--what a pack of rats we humans are!
   
   Rayfield doesn't analyze so much as record the appalling criminal and pathological behavior of Stalin and an entire ruling elite. By doing so, he hopes to explain how Stalin not only rose to power, kept power, but infected everyone around him with his murderous paranoia and ruthless quest for dominance. How did Stalin get these men to kill for him--to commit not just one Holocaust, but repeated holocausts over the decades of his absolute tyranny? And how did he convince, order, and inspire this gang of pseudo-psychopathic "party leaders" to kill so many as well as each other without turning on the one man from whom they all had the most to fear--Stalin himself?
   
   Rayfield suggests that it was part of Stalin's dark genius to be able to manipulate his minions in such a way that they were all in a constant state of mutual suspicion, each trying to get a leg up on the other, all trying to outdo each other in ruthless efficiency to please the boss and to avoid incurring his wrath. The whole warped dynamic doesn't sound a great deal different than the politicking that goes on in any ordinary workplace--without, naturally, the pogroms. No doubt Stalin's divide and conquer strategy goes a way towards explaining the crimes committed by these otherwise unremarkable men, but one suspects the matter is quite a bit more complicated and rooted in the paradoxes of human nature itself.
   
   What Rayfield illustrates most chillingly is the thin line that separates the normal man from the callous bureaucratic killer for whom millions of lives are, as Stalin once said, just a statistic. For it isn't the ever-present and ever-willing supply of sociopaths and contract killers available in any society who did the hands-on killing in the Gulags and prisons of Stalin's Russia that are so disturbing, but the "company men," the "family men," who went home to their wives and kids after a long day at the office casually ordering the ethnic cleansing of the Caucuses or the prophylactic execution of twenty thousand Poles.
   
   Yet while focusing more attention on Stalin's right (and left) hand men (like Beria, Yezhov, and Yagoda) than is usually the case in studies of Stalin and his crimes, Rayfield somehow fails to make these admittedly inhuman characters seem like real-life human beings. There's a lack of biographical depth and detail, of incident and anecdote that might flesh out these otherwise thinly-drawn figures and perhaps offer further clues and insights into their natures and into what turns not just politicians into killers, but poets, soldiers, wives, doctors, basically anyone, into an accomplice and snitch ready to betray their fellow man to save their own neck.
   
   In providing, admirably, the objective facts it seems to me that something was nevertheless missing that would bring this gang of cruds to life. Quite probably, there's just too much ground to cover here--the cast of characters is enormous, the crimes monstrous and abundant, and the time period over half a century. At five hundred densely-written pages, it's hard to see how Rayfield could have gone into much more depth in one volume. Still, in the end, *Stalin and His Hangmen* is a compelling and astounding read that has the power to shock even those who think they already know just how unspeakably cruel a people and a society can become when it's ruled by human beings at their worst.

5 comments about John Quincy Adams: (The American Presidents Series).

1. The author is best known as the biographer of Jackson, so understandably he shows some favoritism for Jackson.
   
   He covers the essentials of JQA's life but very briefly as intended. The book serves its purpose as a concise biography of a president whose life was intimately connected with the history of the first six decades of the United States.



2. I am familiar with the concept of the American Presidents Series, whereby each chief executive is given a relatively short and concise treatment. Perfect for the history buff that might not want to invest several weeks in reading a two volume discourse on the life and times of James K. Polk.
   
   John Quincy Adams was an important American statesman during a turbulent period of American history. His heritage as a son of Founding Father John Adams, coupled with a virtual lifetime of public service is certainly deserving of study (granted, for a serious history buff, probably more than that provided in this work). I was therefore somewhat disappointed when upon receipt of the book, it was no larger than a mere pamphlet.
   
   The Amazon synopsis lists it as being composed of 196 pages. I can't imagine how this number was arrived at. The text of the book comes in at 155 pages. Even including the "Editor's Note", endnotes, milestones, bibliography and index, only 173 are consumed. If you add the title page, all the blank pages at the beginning and end of the book AND the front and back cover, you still can't come up with 196 pages. Therefore, what you have is a very short biography that is actually over 20% shorter than advertised. Certainly understandable in the case of some of the "sketchier" Presidents, but John Quincy Adams?
   
   Adams, born into the illustrious family of John and Abigail Adams, was raised to lead a life in politics. It is an unusual set of circumstances that resulted in Adams's presidency actually being viewed as the least successful period of his life, rather than its pinnacle. Adams was an accomplished diplomat from an early age, spending productive time in all the European capitals throughout the early American administrations. He finally served as Secretary of State under James Monroe, a recognized stepping stone to the presidency.
   
   His election in 1824, by a bitterly divided House of Representatives, ushered in a period of political bitterness and infighting astonishing in its ferocity. His personal feuds with Andrew Jackson and his supporters are possibly the most vicious in political history. Adams's presidency is generally viewed as quite ineffective. His refusal to take advantage of political patronage and his naivety in matters of political strategy doomed him to serve a single term.
   
   Following his presidency, Adams was elected to represent the state of Massachusetts in the House of Representatives, where he continued to be a thorn in the side of his opponents, from all aspects of the political spectrum. The single personality trait of Adams highlighted throughout this work is independence. His refusal to abide by party lines and forge long lasting alliances resulted in his failure to govern firm majorities throuhgout his career.
   
   He was a henpecked son and, according to the author, a failure as a father and husband. He comes across many times as a sanctimonious Puritan and devolved later in life into an unpleasant, irascible, back bencher. Nevertheless, he was a seminal figure in early 19th century American history and deserving of more than 155 pages of treatment.
   
   Finally, a note on the author's style. Given the brevity of the work and the scope of Adams's life, it is not surprising that the writing sometimes feels clipped and brusque, moving quickly from topic to topic. On several ocassions, the author begins paragraphs with short, declarative statements such as, "What a disaster!", "What an opening!", "That did it!" (twice), "Superior management!", "What idiocy!", that lent a jarring almost inappropriately informal tone to the writing.
   
   All in all a relatively unsatisfactory work. Had the author in fact taken 196 pages to present the subject, perhaps it would have been better received. Nevertheless, if you want an ultra quick and dirty synopsis on the life and political career of John Quincy Adams and only have 5-6 hours to invest, this may be the best you could do.



3. Robert Remini's brief study of John Quincy Adams (1767-1848) is part of the American Presidency Series edited by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. The series has the commendable aim of introducing the reader to each of the Presidents in a volume of short scope. The broader aim, I think, is to reawaken an appreciation of the history of our country and to stimulate reflection on the American experience. Thus, each volume tries to present a story of a life and also to explain briefly what is unique about each President and makes him worthy to be remembered.
   
   Remini gives an excellent discussion of John Quincy Adams's service to the United States, both during his Presidency and before and after it. The aspect of JQA's public service that stands out, both in his Presidency and otherwise, is his commitment to American Nationalism. By this I mean a devotion to creating a strong, united nation for all the people to promote the public welfare. JQA worked diligently to advance the interests of the entire American people, as he saw these interests, rather than to be a tool of any faction or party or momentary passion. Much of the time, he succeeded.
   
   As President, JQA advocated the creation of public works and improvements to link the country together. He was a strong supporter of education, scientific advancement, and learning. He wanted the Federal government to play an active role in supporting these ends and worked towards the creation of an American university. (After his Presidency he was a strong advocate for the creation of the Smithsonian Institution.)
   
   Before he assumed the Presidency, Adams served as the Secretary of State under James Monroe. He worked for the goal of American Nationalism by expanding the boundaries of the United States through a skillful exercise of diplomacy until they extended to the Pacific Ocean. JQA also was instrumental in the formulation of the Monroe Doctrine.
   
   Following his presidency. JQA served as a Congressman from Massachusetts. He distinguished himself in working for the anti-slavery cause and, specifically, by his tireless opposition to the "gag rule" which aimed to prevent critical discussion of slavery-related issues in the halls of Congress.
   
   Remini presents his material in a way that focuses on this theme of JQA's public service and on its nationalistic aspirations . He also points out how and why JQA failed to realize many of his goals, particularly during his term as the sixth President (1825-1828) Adams was named President by the House of Representatives following a highly contested election. It was alleged that he struck a "corrupt bargain" with Henry Clay, who became Adams's Secretary of State. This "corrupt bargain" doomed the Adams Presidency and tarnished both Adams's and Clay's careers.
   
   Adams was also highly opinionated and stuffy and gave the impression of aloofness. He was not a good politician and lacked a certain ability to compromise or to work cooperatively with others. At one point Remini writes (p. 110): "It is really impossible to think of any other president quite like John Quincy Adams. He seemed intent on destroying himself and his administration. By the same token, it is difficult to think of a president with greater personal integrity." JQA was defeated for a second term by Andrew Jackson in a bitterly fought campaign. Among other things, Jackson possessed abundant popular appeal and charisma, in sharp contrast to JQA's aloof, intellectual character.
   
   While Adams's Presidency failed, his goals and ideals were good. They lived on and deserve studying and remembering.
   
   Remini also gives a good summary of Adams's personal life, adopting some of the psychohistory of JQa's recent biographers. He points out the stresses that Adams endured from his famous father and mother and the pressures placed upon him and his brothers for high achievement. JQA also imposed these pressures and expectations, alas, on his own children. There is a good discussion of Adams's failed love affair as a young man --probably the one passion of his life -- and of his subsequent marriage to Louisa Johnson. Remini describes JQAs extensive intellectual interests, his tendencies to anger and to depression and he links these traits in a sensible way to the failings of Adams's Presidency.
   
   This is an excellent study of JQA which captures in short compass the essence and character of his contribution to the United States. Readers who want to learn more about JQA -- with a focus on his service as Secretary of State and as Congressman from Massachusetts may wish to read the two-volume study by Samuel Flagg Bemis: "Joh Quincy Adams and the Foundations of American Foreign Policy" (1949) and "John Quincy Adams and the Union" (1956).
   
   Robin Friedman



4. This biography of John Quincy Adams, referred to as JQA throughout much of the book, is quite a treat. It astonishes me that so much information can be packed into such a short book (155 pages of text). Still, from my perspective, this is a satisfying book.
   
   John Quincy Adams was truly an exceptional character to study. As a young person, he accompanied his father, John Adams, to Europe to help him in his diplomatic duties. JQA learned an immense amount, developed many useful skills (including learning different languages), and began his career of public service at a very young age.
   
   Born in 1767, he lives a long and full life, dying in 1848. His coffin contained language was written by Daniel Webster (whom Adams detested) (Page 155): "A citizen of the United States, in the Capitol of Washington, February 23, 1848, Having served his country for half a century, And enjoyed its highest honors."
   
   A sampling of some of his accomplishments: His service abroad while in his teens, going to Russia apart from his father to serve as an assistant to the American ambassador there (the ambassador did not speak French, and JQA's command of that language was valuable in the Russian court); His first tour of Congress was controversial as his independence led both parties to sometimes get irritated with him; His time as Secretary of State, during which he developed the Monroe Doctrine; His controversial election as President and the rough politics of his one term; his return to the House of Representatives as a cantankerous and independent Representative. His return to Congress after serving as President is extraordinary, not repeated afterwards by any former President. In his term, old as he was, he served as a stalwart against slavery, and near the end of his life (as viewers of the movie "Amistad" know) he argued before the Supreme Court of the miscarriage of justice against the enslaved Africans who had seized control of the slave ship.
   
   All in all, a quick read and a pretty satisfying volume.



5. One can't help but view this biography as if Remini were defending the honor of an individual he clearly found wanting. John Quincy is so much the prideful product of his famous forebears (must read McCullough's John Adams first), that he can't help but fall short in his own right. Particularly insightful is Quincy's stubborn wrong-headedness in his managing of his cabinet appointments, which contributed greatly to a sour legacy. Remini does serve JQ well in praising his foreign policy successes as ambassador and Sec. of State, and provides enlightened review of his post-presidency legislative terms.....but clearly the tone is condemning of a most ascetic and belligerent man reaching beyond his natural skills as a diplomat to underachieve as an executive.

5 comments about Locked in the Cabinet.

1. Reich is absolutely brilliant and this book presents a good dollop of his wisdom. Few people in politics are driven by ideals anymore, which makes Reich's laser focus on improving economic inequity all the more laudable. And doomed.
   
   In fact, this book explains a whole lot about how & why Clinton's first term of office became such a disappointment. "B" (as Reich, a longtime FoB, calls him) was elected with a mandate, he was young and energetic, he was idealistic and he was determined to improve the social disasters left by 12 years of voodoo economics. But he was also a classic Washington Outsider who did not have the requisite skills of playing Congress like a fiddle as FDR, JFK & LBJ had with their progressive terms. Consequently Clinton's agenda became a losing political football even under a majority Democratic Congress. When Congress passed back into Republican hands in 1994 (in large part due to Clinton's own fumbling) his effectiveness was cut off at the knees by Newt Gingrich and his Contract with America. From then on, B was in full-time CYA mode, relying on Dick Morris's polling of voters to decide all policy issues. The result -- and ultimately the indignity of the impeachment attempt -- are all too familiar and preordained. Alas Bill, we hardly knew thee...
   
   Reich's book is fascinating, thought provoking, brutally frank and often hilariously funny. The man is a gem -- too bad politics isn't a respectable business anymore. Or was it ever?



2. Reich presents insightful information in a hillarious way. By writing the book in a journal style, the reader views the 1st four years of the Clinton presidency as a hard fight for the laboring poor. One really feels as if they are in Reich's position, with his outrage, frustrations, and loneliness.



3. So far, I've read three other memoirs from the Clinton Administration; those of Mr. & Mrs. Clinton and Bob Rubin.
   "Locked in the Cabinet" exhibits a sharp contrast to all other three in that it is the more casual and down to earth recollection of what was happening behind the Democrat-"Putting People First" - disguise of the Clinton Administration, where, in the face of Bill Clinton's indecisiveness, some of the key cabinet members and the Federal Reserve's chief continued to put big businesses and Wall Street first, at the expense of working class America which the Labor Secretary represented. Reich describes some of his cabinet colleagues, plus the President, the First Lady and Greenspan, in an unprecedented light.
   He also well explains his ideal fresh from den being constantly challenged and often destroyed by political balance of power and reality. He does so with passion, wit, colloquialism, and the sense of forgiveness.
   As a reader in Japan where (from wive's point of view) what traditionally makes a good husband is a big bread winner who is hardly home, the detailed descriptions of the author's struggles against his family missing him badly is too alien to me. The author who held a highly respected cabinet position away from family would have made a most desirable husband in Japan.
   I would like to read how his family life developed after he was reunited. Hope he is happy in Berkeley now.



4. I continue to use this book in my "Intro. to Public Policy" course. I ask my mostly first- and second-year students at the end of the semester if they like the book and if they think it is useful even though it's now almost 9 years old. They thoroughly enjoy it and appreciate gaining a better understanding of the Clinton administration and events in the 1990s that happened when they were only 6-12 years old. Highly recommend.



5. Robert Reich gives a human touch to the deliberations with high levels of government and how the president is sometimes trapped by congress and his advisors and not able to follow his compaign promises. It also presents the frustations of a cabinet secretary working to improve the staus of those working for minimal wages and all the time loosing to the desires of big business. He describes what one gives-up of himself to serve in a president's cabinet. It is very readable, much like a diary and follows the cronology of Clinton's first 4 years. Mr. Reich is also humorus and not afraid to relate his foibles as secretary of commerce. An enjoyable and informative read

5 comments about Winston Churchill: A Life (Penguin Lives).

1. Publisher's Weekly is entirely mistaken, in their comments above, in suggesting that Sir Winston Churchill once belonged to the Labour Party.
   
   He never did, of course.
   
   Churchill did, however, cross the floor to join the Liberal Party, often making common cause there with his Liberal ally David Lloyd George. He left the Liberals and returned to the Conservative Party (at first, as a "Constitutionalist") in the 1920's...
   
   Alan D. Hyde



2. Let me make clear at the outset that I am no historian. Indeed, I wouldn't even qualify as an amateur historian. I am just your average 30-something fairly ignorant reader living a period of love for more or less recent history. Given this premise, I found this little book quite perfect for what I was looking for.
   
   This is a short, entertaining, and VERY well written biography of one of the greatest men in the 20th century. Because of the serious limits of my knowledge on the subject, I certainly cannot judge on the accuracy of the reports. However, to the best of my knowledge, the author is considered a reputable WWII historian. Indeed I liked this book so much that I also purchased his history of WWII. You can read this book in a day, and it will entertain you like a good novel, while also informing you as few novels would do.
   
   I would not pay too much attention to those reviewers that complain about this book not delving into Churchill's shortcomings as a man or as a politician. This is a very small book, about 190 small-format pages. You can hardly expect a comprehensive treatise from such a book. Also, I suspect that emphasizing Churchill's shortcomings would be like emphasizing Hitler's moments of tenderness with his lovers or with some German children during the Nazi regime. I mean, they surely happened, but it's not what you want to spend pages on, if you have only limited space to devote to the topic, isn't it? Besides, even if the Churchill that emerges from this book is certainly a truly great man, he does not emerge as a perfect great man. To me that was enough, and I am glad I read this book.
   
   I am grateful to the author, and I highly recommend it to anyone looking for a short, beautifully written biography of this man, to whom I certainly owe something...



3. Doubtless this biography is insufficient to really understand Churchill, but for those who are fairly ignorant of the man, it provides a useful quick sketch, and perhaps a jumping off point for further reading.



4. In 1895 when his father died, the sickly and indifferent 21-year-old military cadet Winston Churchill was flat broke, the legacy of a father who was a compulsively extravagent wastrel.
   
   Lord Randolph had been syphilitic since early youth. His mother, American-born Jennie Jerome whose father was a stockbroker and part-owner of 'The New York Times', was always attracted to men other than her husband or her sons (Winston, born 1874, and John Spencer, born 1880). In modern terms, they were trailer trash; in Phoenix, Sheriff Joe would have set aside a bunk in his tent-city jail for Winston.
   
   But, instead of slums, Winston was born and brought up in Blenheim Palace, built 1704-22 and still one of the great estates of England. American ex-presidents get palatial libraries as their memorials; the British rewarded their leaders with mansions and great estates. Blenheim Palace was one of the finest, far better than the estates later awarded to Nelson and Wellington.
   
   Perhaps it was the milieu of Blenheim Palace, but Churchill matured into a man absolutely convinced of the majesty of the British virtues of patriotism, loyalty, courage and fair play. For him, being British meant manliness, courage, tenacity and ultimate moral decency. It resonated with the vigorous American spirit of Theodore Roosevelt and the beauty of the strenuous life.
   
   President George Bush is reported to keep a bust of Churchill in the Oval Office; perhaps as a reminder of the complete contrast to himself. Bush ducked the Vietnam War in the Texas Country Club Air Guard; Churchill eagerly sought war, even though he hated it.
   
   Like Ulysses S. Grant, Churchill was a gifted wordsmith instead of a stumblebum. He free-lanced as a journalist while serving as a British officer and was sometimes earning 20 times his military pay. He never stopped learning, he wanted facts, order, reason. His mother sent him crates of books while he was on duty, and he devoured them all.
   
   Gen. Sir Herbert Kitchener described him as a "medal-hunter" and "self-advertiser" who was "super-precocious" and "insufferably bumptious." It was a good assessment. But, the public loved his books and even the Prince of Wales praised him. Whatever one thinks of Churchill, his career and successes are due to his own effort, intelligence, work and nerve.
   
   In brief, this is the story of a man who might well have ended up as a Soho souse, but instead became the greatest man of the past century. He did it through his own efforts, not because of Daddy's friends, money or ability to pull strings.
   
   This book defines the character of a great man.



5. I've never been a big fan of Winston Churchill, but after reading esteemed historian John Keegan's succinct biography of the man, I must say that I like AND respect him just a little bit more. Keegan himself confesses that he never thought much of old Winston until he stumbled across an old recording of his speeches (in NYC of all places) and realized what a gifted and inspirational orator and leader he was. He led his beloved Britain through her darkest hours in modern history, to a victory that was anything but assured. The people seemed to genuinely love him, and his sentiment was seemingly mutual.
   
   His years as Prime Minister during WW2 are the most well known, but Churchill led an amazingly full life, and his life of public service began way back in the late 19th century. Keegan describes how the young Winston, who did poorly in school, but had an undeniable intelligence, educated himself in politics, history and the English Classics. He was a romantic who was in love with his small island nation, and he dedicated his life to it. He was a brave soldier who served in numerous wars, including WW1, and while it would be fair to say he was a little too fond of war, he was no different from the average English officer of the time in this regard. In my eyes, his major fault was his hypocrisy. It just seems hard to reconcile his staunch imperialism with his constant talk about the virtues of freedom and liberty, and how Britain was the main proponent of such things. I would have liked for Keegan to address this point a bit more, but for such a short biography, I can let it slide.
   
   I was intrigued to learn that Churchill and IRA founder Michael Collins were on friendly terms and greatly admired each other. In fact, Churchill apparently had a "gut sympathy for fighters" which is why he had more respect for the Irish and Boers of South Africa than he did for Ghandi and his passive movement in India.
   
   Anyways, the book is extremely well written and entertaining, and I found it to be an overall excellent introduction to the life of one of the most important figures of the 20th century. 4.5 stars.

5 comments about Golden Bones: An Extraordinary Journey from Hell in Cambodia to a New Life in America.

1. Golden Bones is a true story which will inspire and captivate you from beginning to end.
   
   Ambassador Sichan Siv shares his journey from his younger days in Cambodia to the White House to the United Nations. His story reminds us that America is a great country and that with hope and hard work-- dreams do come true.
   
   This book intertwines history, Cambodian and American culture with a tale of courage and hope. A must read for all and a story we, as a land of immigrants, can appreciate. His story is the American Dream.



2. I just finished reading this book -- it is extraordinary and well worth buying. In many respects this is the ultimate 'self help' guide. It is the kind of book you read when facing adversity in life, or give to a friend when they are looking down. Sichan Siv has faced the worst life has to offer and has made it to the top. Anyone who thinks they can't rebound or pick themselves up from tough times should read Siv's story.
   
   The other remarkable message is the opportunities that America gives to everyone, no matter what your background. Siv came to the U.S. as a refugee and soon found himself working in the White House. What other country on the planet offers opportunities like that? Another inspirational message to people of any background, color, education, etc. about what can be accomplished if you keep on trying.



3. Want good writing? Want a rippin' good read? This book is good for both. The other reviews will tell you it's a heroic story of a young man who survived - in every sense of the word - the horrors of the Khmer Rouge Killing Fields. That it is. But there's much more to this biography than that. This guy made it from being a member of a 'mobile slave unit' to being an ambassador of the United States to the United Nations. Not even Hollywood can invent a superhero with that kind of meteoric potential. No one would buy tickets to such a fairy tale. Ah, but they wouldn't have read Golden Bones! It's one thing to "fall into the mouth of a tiger" and have the presence of mind to play with his teeth - as Sichan Siv did more than once in his hell-on-earth struggle to survive bands of murderous teenagers armed with AK47s and infused with revolutionary zeal. It's one thing to weigh only 120 pounds, be covered with sores from rancid soup and wounds from pongee sticks and wake up one night to find a boa constrictor crawling across your chest. But it's another thing altogether to rise from a pile of ashes that deep and work your way so close to the very top of the American political hierarchy. We've heard of concentration camp survivors making new lives for themselves in America. But Sichan Siv's incredible story rivals the best of them. It left me with the irresistible thought that despite its many faults, tomorrow's world will be even better than today's.



4. Golden Bones: An Extraordinary Journey from Hell in Cambodia to a New Life in America
   A must to read for anyone interested in knowing the extent to which the Kmer Rouge destroyed Cambodia.



5. A truly touching story of courage and survival. I couldn't put this book down. A must read to see how fortunate you really are. This is one of the best books I have ever read. A story that will have you shaking your head as you understand what the author and his beloved homeland experienced. This story will stay with you long after you finish the book.

5 comments about Standing Next to History: An Agent's Life Inside the Secret Service.

1. I found this book extremely enlightening as to what life as an Agent in the USSS will be like. Petro does a wonderful job at writing about what he is allowed to disclose yet still keeping the reader engaged. If you are interested in the USSS, you should read this book during your application process since little is know about the Service.



2. If you have any interest in the presidency of Ronald Reagan or the Secret Service, I highly recommend this book. The tone is very matter-of-fact, but what comes through is what an honorable person Joseph Petro is. He lost out on a possible N.F.L career when he was drafted for the Viet Nam War, but our country, and especially its elected officials during the time of his service, gained a great deal.
   
   A very engaging book.



3. This book is well written with just enough detail to keep you in every scene. It hooked me from page 1 and kept me interested all along.



4. I wanted to get a little more background on the life of a Secret Service Agent. I found this book filled with interesting tidbits of information. It was an easy read that I found entertaining, as well. His recounts of what it was like working around the Reagan administration, the Pope's US visit, etc. kept me interested for several hours worth of reading. It personalized some of the details that the public often may not realize.



5. This is another book I read cover to cover in one sitting. I'm sad that it's over. The thoughtfulness and ethics and, well, honor of the writer touched me. Lots of cool insider info without compromising security. No bitchy backstabbing. No gratuitous back-slapping either. A very easy read that I couldn't tear myself away from. A couple months back, the current president was in my city for a couple of hours and the amount of disruption to traffic was startling. I now have far more appreciation for how difficult these visits are and how much orchestration they involve.

5 comments about Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy.

1. No, not the book (which was great) but the stories. It's a tad repetiive but that just reinforces just how "consistentl" duplicitous the leftists in the book are in their endeavors.
   
   Before the left attacks and talks of a few pedophile priests or Rush Limbaugh popping painkillers, remember that conservatives:
   
   a) usually apologize
   b) are not harming anyone but themselves and their families and
   c) normally take stands on issues of high morality and virtuous principle, which are difficult to maintain in a society where G-d gives us all free will
   d) don't lie, fabricate, deny then sue when caught. they also are not afraid to debate and discuss those shortcoming. the left, especially folks like al franken and michael moore, refuse discourse or call names. they are the children they never had....
   
   Schweizer's book, as most who read it noticed, is meticulously researched. He has endnotes to back up all quotes and claims. These stories are totally true, and any google search proves it.
   
   It's lucky the left has fascist-like control of the media and academia or we'd all know that Michael Moore and Barbra Streisand, who claim America is racist, refuse to hire blacks for their films or pay more than $3 per hour to Latinos who work for them. Or that they own stock (and make millions) in the Military Industrial Complex and Halliburton, though they crusade against those entities as evil. Or about their (Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi for example) rapacious anti-environmentalist lifestyles (because they need yachting space or land for a new golf course or hotel) and lack of interest in civil liberties (depsite both being huge into organizations like the Sierra Club and the ACLU).
   
   Or we might know Gloria Steinam, like most militant feminists, loves strong men and "selfishly" has been married. Or we might know that folks who deplore capitalism like anti-americans Noam Chomsky, Ralphie Nader and race-baiter Cornel West, actually make their millions purely off capitalism with their huge investments and off-shore tax shelters...and of course, charge huge amounts for their speeches before they retire to their 98% white twee suburbs in the northeast.
   
   Trust me, this book is great and eye-opening, specifically because the mainstream media is so in bed with the left that they ignore these travesties...and I didn't even have the time to write about the chapter on the Clintonistas.
   
   I am incensed reading every word, but then, with the aid of Schweizer's noteworthy conclusion, I relaxed.
   
   You see, the left-wing elite is just like elites should be. They have their enjoyments and policies. The difference is, these folks somehow feel the insecure need to lie in public about their goals and beliefs, often for votes, sympathy or money.
   
   So what if they like capitalism? That's why they're rich, and why America is great.
   
   So what if they hire the best folks for the job, and a majority are not "minorities"?
   
   So what if they live in the most secluded and wealthiest parts of America?
   
   So what if they won't hire unions for their work? The job will be done better and faster WITHOUT unions.
   
   And so what if they don't want the enviro-whacko policies to interfere with their ambitions and lifestyle?
   
   Again though, the point is, the left NEEDS the votes and sympathy of these people for their own personal gain---so they lie and act as hypocrites, as no one holds them accountable. Must be nice.
   
   They want to live like the conservative Americans they loathe, but don't want to admit it; thus they act a certain way and speak the other. Do as I say not as I do, indeed.



2. This is a great book. A right winger burns left wingers who for the most part deserve it. Its interesting in a world as insanely complex as ours western politics has such two distinct, opposing sides. A glaring reality of life is that there are two sides to every story and somewhere in between lies the truth.
   It is for this reason that I have delved as intently into right wing ideology as much as the left and I have seen eye to eye & learnt as much from a "right wing lunatic" as William L Pierce as I have from an "ultra liberal wacko" like Noam Chomsky, and of course much from the more "balanced" perspectives in between. I fail to understand why so few people fail to have an ideology that is a culmination and progression of the two.
   The most disturbing factor of the left/right circus is that people choose their team and stick to it, defending with religious fervour their chosen ideology despite flaws of policy & the flaws of the leaders or representatives. It seems in America that scumbags always have a way of floating to the top, so instead of saying something as absurd as "sure right wingers are hypocrites but at least they admit it" how about you crucify ANYONE who actually deserves it & dont stick up for people who dont deserve it, regardless of what side your on.
   Perhaps its the fact that your whole society is based around entertainment...television, books, magazines, radio, reviews, opinions, rants, exposes, complex issues nibbled at in bite size pieces with no progress ever really being made. Not even the most serious of affairs is aproached with true sobriety and frivolity is so ingrained in your culture that even if you are aware of it, (and perhaps despise it) you inevitably wallow in it & become a product of it. When idiots such as Barbara Striesand & Anne Coulter are people in the public spotlight who are taken seriously (or even just recognised or given a public platform or are being talked about in this book) isnt it time stop & ask yourself how the hell did we get here? Do you think that people such as these were given the time of day 100 years ago? Of course not....which is why America became all that it is (or was).
   Whether your from the right and you want to gloat at the indiscetions of sketchy lefties who have been caught out or your from the left and you like to get riled by typically simplified rantings of the right you'll love this book. Laugh about it, argue with people about it, stay up to date with the controversy about it.. keep treading water.



3. I always suspected we had a bunch of hypocrites influencing and running our country. But to be so blatantly two-sided! Wow, these people must be pathological liars!!
   
   Liberal or conservative, since reading this book, I will no longer unquestioningly believe anything I hear or read!



4. I've been known to offer up my views on everything from movies to CDs to books. It's been in the realm of book reviews that I've taken the most flack. Why? Because I offer a conservative viewpoint and admit to it. There isn't a person on this planet who can claim to offer a completely unbiased point of view. Your lifestyle, your upbringing, your education and your life experiences all help to form who and how you are. Thus we are all biased so lets be honest about it up front, eh?
   
   With that in mind I can tell you that I found the book DO AS I SAY NOT AS I DO: PROFILES IN LIBERAL HYPOCRISY by Peter Schweitzer to be one of the most honest and hilarious books I've read in ages. Yes, he does have that conservative view to his writings, but not to the point where it overshadows the arguments that he is trying to put forth as say Michael Savage does. Instead, Schweitzer takes cold hard facts and makes his argument.
   
   Just to deviate for a moment, I've read political discourse on both sides of the fence and the thing that amazes me most is that conservatives tend to use facts to make their arguments. Liberals tend to name call. Al Franken is the best example of this (and he is discussed in this book). Yes, some more well known conservatives resort to this now and then but not nearly as much so on a regular basis. If you would like to prove me wrong with a liberal author who makes a case using verifiable facts please write and let me know. I am always open to a good read.
   
   Back to the book. Schweitzer takes a look at several high profile liberals and the ideas they espouse and then compares them to the lifestyles that they actually live. I mean if you believe we should all do what we can to save the Earth, you should do the same things you tell others too, right? If you believe that big corporations are the root of all evil, you should do everything in your power to not support them, correct? Schweitzer takes these twelve examples and shows how they do exactly what the title infers which is tell you one thing and do another.
   
   First up is Noam Chomsky. Chomsky is an online God. You hear people in chat room and blogs hail him as the best thing since sliced bread. And every word that he says is held up as gospel when it comes to just how terrible a place America is. Everything from corporations to the industrial military complex are taken to tasks by Chomsky. And greedy Americans should be paying more taxes and inheritance taxes as well. So does Chomsky do the same?
   
   This leading socialist thinker lives in an $850,000 home. He's put his incomes in various tax shelters so that his children don't have to pay inheritance taxes. While teaching and writing, his paycheck was supported by grants from the U.S.Army, the air force and the office of Naval Research. And for someone who claims that we should have open and honest free speech, his speeches are far from free as well as all sorts of media that he holds dear. Copyright infringement is warned against in everything he does.
   
   Next chapter? Michael Moore. So much has been revealed about Moore that I'm beginning to think even the liberals of the country don't praise him as often as they once did. Preaching that he came from humble working class conditions in Flint, Michigan, it's been revealed he actually grew up in the more affluent middle-class town of Davison. Moore constantly talks about the workers of this country who are placed under the thumb of oppressive management. Moore constantly demonizes the United States saying that no one can make something of themselves there. Moore also claims that racism is rampant in this country and that he will hire blacks to work for him without the need for affirmative action.
   
   So what's wrong here? First off, Moore made something of himself but believes no one else can. He makes thousands of dollars for each personal appearance and the demands he makes at those are outrageous (special water to drink?). The same country he bad mouths gave him the opportunity to make millions. As for workers? Ask some of those who have worked for him and you'll see he doesn't pay well or at times even pay at all. Two writers were asked by Moore to work under the table for less to avoid paying union wages. As for minorities? Of 134 producers, editors, cinematographers, composers and production coordinators that have worked on the various TV series and films Moore has made, only 3 have been black. Oh you might also be interested to know that this same person who claimed that the stock market was a terrible thing has invested much of his money there. Not only that, many of his dollars were invested in companies like Halliburton (look at the back of the book sleeve to see a copy of that tax return).
   
   Are you beginning to get the picture? I could give more and more details about the book and each person covered but that would take the fun away from the reader. Schweitzer does a great job of mixing information that he gathered that is open to the public with the statements made by each of these people to show the two sided nature each of them shares. It's not him making the claim and saying its so because he said so but done with facts that are there for all to see if they look.
   
   Who else is among the twelve? Al Franken, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Ralph Nader, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Streisand, George Soros, Gloria Steinem and Cornel West. Each has their own claim to fame here from abusing non-union workers to not paying people who work for them to using a capitalists system to reap rewards while at the same time telling others they shouldn't be so greedy or invest anywhere. Ecology? Some own companies that are major polluters or have stock in some of the worst of the worst, but those must be all right for THEM to invest in while telling everyone else they should punish those same companies by not investing.
   
   Schweitzer writes well making this read easily accessible to the most novice reader. He puts things in simple form so as to make the point without clouding it with minute details, though the details are there. And he makes it humorous at the same time.
   
   I will be the first person to say that there are a number of hypocrites on the right as well. Conservatives who make claims and do the opposite as well. Schweitzer points them out in the first chapter. The difference is the way they respond when it's discovered. They repent. They admit to their wrong doings. They don't continue to demand everyone else follow their creed while at the same time saying they won't do it too. For the twelve selected in this book that doesn't hold true. Not only do they continue to preach how bad things are, they still do them behind not too closed doors at the same time.
   
   A well informed public is what this country needs. Books written about both sides should be read by all. Get both sides of the story. Don't blindly follow anyone. Seek out books like this one and others. The more you know, the better decisions you can make in the long run. And don't take these books at face value. Check the footnotes and see if they're honest. A good place to start getting informed is this book.
   
   One last piece of evidence that some people make uninformed decisions right here at epinions. I've had at least two people tell me they've had the same thing happen. Write a review with an opposing viewpoint, preferably a conservative one. To do so is to invite insult in your comments or worse yet a bad rating not based on the content of the review itself but because of your beliefs. Think conservatives are mean and hateful? Look at those ratings and comments. When 15 out of 16 rate it very good and one very bad and that person doesn't leave a name? Judge for yourself.



5. Schweizer has done an excellent job of proving the left doesn't practice what it preaches. There is information on Michael Moore, Hilary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Al Franken, Cornell West and many others that will infuriate you. They are truely shameless. Rich and shameless..
   
   A prominent Republican would have his career in politics severely damaged if not destroyed if such hypocrisies were even SUSPECTED much less proven. The mainstream media and it's liberal bias and irresponsible reporting has done a great disservice to this country and it's people. The elitist attitude of the left as they assume the moral high ground while looking down their nose at you in EVERY situation is what is most sickening. It seems the far left live in their own little world where just having a conservative opinion is considered neo-con, racist, redneck white America and something to be ashamed of.
   
   Even though Schweizer backs up every allegation with hard evidence the stupid "sheeple" continue heading for the cliff in a dead run!! Lord help us all.

5 comments about Companero: The Life and Death of Che Guevara.

1. Seeing the recent movie "The Motorcycle Diaries" brought me to read this biography of Che Guevara. I highly recommend the film, and with reservations recommend Castaneda's biography of Che. At the time, I did little research into which Che biography would be "best" so I can not reference other Che biographies. I found this in many passages a tiring read, especially in the middle section, which covers Che's career as Cuba's lead economic bureaucrat.
   
   The book does not idealize Che although I suspect the author admires at least many of Che's humanitarian beliefs. Castendeda is excellent at pointing out a lot not to like about Che and his activities. It portrays Che as an enigma, as a very intuitive mind with an idealists somewhat naive view of human nature.
   
   Che wanted a better world for the underclass, and yet Che determines to do build this better world not by the practice of medicine, he was a doctor, but by insisting that only by violent revolution can it be achieved.
   
   Castandeda begins with a great review of Che's early life, his asthma (he fought being a constant prisoner to the constraints of the decease), and influence of his mother, and ends with a very interesting interpretation of why he has become a cultural icon. He follows Che on a path to what Castaneda calls his "Christ like" status in death. He places Che in context of the history of the times and within each setting, what Argentina was like when he grew up, Cuba when he fought by Castro's side, the later the "failures" in the Congo and Bolivia.
   
   I was rather surprised to find myself seeing Che as a character in Woody Allen's "Bananas" film as I read of Che's actual efforts to export revolution to the Congo and Bolivia. He seemed to assume a lot and his band of brothers in both the Congo and Bolivia was unbelievably small. For all Che's reading, apparent high IQ, he seems to have had no sense of what each of these country's underclass's and cultures wanted, needed, or would accept. He made the false assumption they would take up arms in unity. This Castaneda points out was not the case, and I kept seeing that the U.S. view of a monolithic communist conspiracy was indeed a myth as Che could not even pull together the China or Soviet factions to support his revolutionary efforts.
   
   I hate to claim a book is over detailed, because I did find many of the extensive footnotes of interest, and helpful. But this is really a scholarly work and as such lacks much in the way of entertaining writing. I'm glad I read the book, and recommend it to those interested in the subject.



2. Being the author a researcher and historian it is amazing the kind of writer he is. His dominion of literary sources is very evident in the ways of expression. Analogies, metaphors, references are abundant. I, personally liked a lot the ending of a chapter where he refers to War and Peace (a Russian novel turned later into a movie). Don't be afraid by this, the language I mention doesn't affect the understanding of the story. Regarding the Comandante, the remembrance of characters like Jesus Christ, Don Quixote, Nazarin or in these days Alexander comes to your mind readily. But, Women's or Gender Studies specialists take note: the "companeras" in the story can be shouted off, slapped in the face or disliked just because her features looked "somehow masculine". Rebember we are in the Sixties where the struggle for women's rights and feminist views were so important!



3. This work by jorge G. Castañeda is one of the very best biographies you can find on Ernesto Guevara by many reasons:
   
   1. The historical chronology is accesible for everybody, but the good interpretation of those events is only at the reach of those who know the intricated aspects of diplomacy and polithics. Castañeda has done a great job understanding the polithical personalities of Guevara, Fidel, Kennedy, Kruschev and all the charachters of this saga. He signals both sides of each personality.
   2. This work is obsessively well documented. Castañeda has had access to many fundamental documents for this history. From American agencies, to British and Soviet services. He takes us not only to what history says but to why the builders of history wanted it to be that way. His amount of interviews is outstanding too, the revelations on the interviews match the information on the secret documents.
   3. Its difficult to confront a personality like Che Guevara without falling in his charm. Its difficult to be objective on an image that is on the chests of many generations. But Castañeda accomplishes that. He decidedly points the many mistakes that Guevara did directing the Central Bank, or the Industry Ministry. He focuses on the distance that Guevara took between idealism and dogma with economic fundamentals, this was a fatal mistake. Castañeda analyzes thoroughly how many of the guerrilla efforts of Guevara in other countries ended in failures and finally in death (Congo, Argentina, Bolivia, etc). But Castañeda also analyzes the outstanding kind of leadership that made of Guevara an icon. Fighting in the first line of fire, leading himself the voluntary work, accepting his mistakes in public (something unthinkable on Fidel, for example), building his leadership in the equity.
   4. Finally, Castañeda builds strong well fundamented theories on several controversial issues like the role of Fidel in the final days of Guevara in Bolivia. The strange lecture of the farewell letter that Guevara wrote to Fidel while Che was still fighting in Congo, a lecture that reduced the polithical possibilites of Guevara in Cuba and pushed him into the craziness: Bolivia. Good or bad will from Fidel? Castañeda discusses this very well.
   
   This is a biography that is fundamented in facts, documents and sharp interpretations. It gets very technical at certain points, like the handling of Cuban economics by Guevara.
   In Paco Ignacio Taibo II biography on Che Guevara for example, Taibo focuses in the anecdotic side of the icon, its clearly a bohemian work. Taibo doesnt lie, but there are susbtantial differences in these 2 works (Taibo and Castañeda) that were done at the same time and that even shared some documents. For example, at one very interesting event they deal with the subject in very different ways. In 1961, after Bahia de Cochinos there was a OEA related meeting in Uruguay. Motivated by brazilian diplomats, Guevara meets with Kennedy's rep Richard Goodwin. A secret meeting, non authorized by Fidel or JFK. Castañeda flies to the documents, looks for the interviews, interprets and builds theories. Taibo just turns the page arguing that Goodwin overrated the meeting and that Guevara didnt give much importance to it.
   By this way, you can contrast the focuses of both works which can be read as compliments. Taibo's work is very rich in anecdotes from the Sierra Maestra, or the funny things that happened to Guevara while changing the rifle for the desk in the Central Bank. You will love to read this side of Guevara. In the historical side, Taibo is accurate but not deep. His biggest achievement in historical deepness is the development of the Guevara's column since they left Sierra Maestra to the triumph in Santa Clara, this part outpowers Castañeda, but that the only thing.
   Castañeda's work left me deeply satisfied, answered many questions and gave me a new panorama on the subject. My 5 stars are fair.



4. This biography gives a detailed account of the life of Ernesto "Che" Guevara, from his childhood days in upper-middle class Argentina to his death during a completely hopeless attempt at guerrilla war in Bolivia.
   
   Che was a complex, and certainly a driven man. He would not let impossible odds or his sometimes poor health allow to stop him. Casteneda explains very well how both his character as well as his experiences in Latin America shaped him that way. The Mexican historian succeeds in giving an excellent account of both the historical events that Che was a part of and of Che's psychological states motivating him to act in these events. The question when and how Che was transformed from a talented son of the privileged class in Argentina who liked to travel to a fierce fighter for the liberation of the proletariat is pondered at length. Along the way, the reader learns a lot about Latin American history and politics. Che's relationship with the other Cuban revolutionaries, especially Fidel Castro, as far as it is accessible for an outsider, is elaborated on.
   
   This book is scholarly written but nevertheless very readable. Casteneda clearly has sympathies for the subject of his biography, but he is critical when it is warranted. Particularly, he points out his failures as an economist and as a military strategist: the efforts of exporting the revolution to the Congo and to Bolivia were ill conceived from the beginning, as the popular support in these places was not comparable to pre-revolutionary Cuba. Despite all these deficits, the spirit of solidarity with the world's poor and suppressed, that Che lived, impressed me as a reader and seemed to have impressed Casteneda. He finishes with a look at Che as a cultural icon, his face printed on countless T-shirts, and on the inspiration he provided for many. After reading the last page of this book one is tempted to shout whole-heartedly "Hasta la victoria siempre!"



5. This year marks the 53rd anniversary of the Cuban July 26th movement, the 47th anniversary of the Cuban Revolution and the 39th anniversary of the execution of Ernesto `Che' Guevara by the Bolivian Army after the defeat of his guerilla forces and his capture in godforsaken rural Bolivia. Thus, it is fitting to review the biography of the life of a man who stood for my generation, the Generation of '68, and for later generations as an icon of revolutionary intransigence. This writer has read a few earlier biographies of Che, which a reading of the author's footnotes will guide the reader toward, but selected this biography for several reasons. First, it was published in 1997 when, after the demise of the Soviet Union and other Eastern European states, more sources became available and thus a more rounded picture could be found for the enduring legacy of Che. Second, the author has done an excellent job of interviewing Che's associates, political opponents, fellow revolutionaries, fellow ministry workers and flat- out agents of American imperialism to get their take on Che. In fact, the author has presented a range of hypothesizes, facts and just pure guesses by these interviewees for every controversial aspect of Che's life from his troubled childhood to the still immense speculation around the circumstances of his early death under fire and in struggle.
   
   Let us be clear about two things. First, this writer has defended the Cuban revolution since its inception; initially under a liberal democratic premise of the right of nations, especially applicable to small nations pressed up against the imperialist powers, to self-determination; later under the above-mentioned premise and also that it should be defended on socialist grounds, not my idea of socialism- the Bolshevik, 1917 kind- but socialism nevertheless. Secondly, my conception of revolutionary strategy and thus of world politics has always been far removed from Che's strategy, which emphasized military victory by guerilla forces in the countryside, rather than my position of mass action by the urban proletariat leading the rural masses. Those strategic differences will be discussed in another review in this space later concerning the fate of the Cuban Revolution. That said, despite the strategic political differences this militant can honor the memory of Che-exceptional revolutionary fighter.
   
   Who was Che and why has he remained an icon for militant youth to this day. Obviously a brief outline of his biography reveals a very appealing rebel. In fact the chronology of his life is sometime no militant today can duplicate. The circumstances have long past that would make such experiences possible. For openers, a wayward, carefree youth who gets serious about politics in 1950's Bolivia when all kinds of upheavals are occurring; a marginal figure associated with the left in Guatemala at the time of the CIA coup against the Arbenz government; adrift in Mexico where he has a fateful meeting with the Cuban revolutionary Fidel Castro and signs on; various adventures and misadventures in the mountains of Cuba where he rises to the leadership of the Rebel Army; the final triumphant march in Havana in 1959; assignment to various high positions in the revolutionary government including Minister of Industries; pro-Soviet then anti-Soviet advocate; advocate of and advisor to Third World revolutionary alliances against imperialism; disillusioned state bureaucrat; failed African liberation fighter in the Congo; and finally, failed Latin American liberation fighter in Bolivia.
   
   
   Youth needs, desires and deserves its heroes. In this sorry world today, unfortunately, there is an abysmal lack of role models available for those who want to storm heaven. More likely, today's models want to rain hell down on the rest of us. You have to take your heroes where you can get them. With the caveat mentioned about political differences above, Che makes a damn appealing icon for militants today.
   
   
   And one has many Che's to choice from. If you read this biography you get to choice a classic Latin American revolutionary romantic of the old 19th century European type; a wayward, carefree bohemian; an errant father, a competent bureaucrat; an exceptional military field commander; an exemplar of the `new man' under socialism; a sycophantic and cruel Stalinist hack; a utopian Stalinist visionary; a counterrevolutionary Trotskyist upsetting the unity of the `socialist' bloc ; a closet Trotskyist bend on permanent revolution; an internationalist fighter to the core; and, a hail fellow well met to name a few. As for this writer, I have in the past usually seen him as the Trotsky of the second half of the 20th century. Another larger than life figure, however, seemingly doomed to oblivion by their political visions. There are many similarities in their personal makeup and in their revolutionary intransigence that made this true. Upon reflection, however, this is a more than a little wrong. The real comparison should be with the great French 19th century revolutionary democratic barricade fighter Louis Blanqui. Comparison with that figure is no mean honor. For you conspiracy theorists out there- Che is dead! However, Che's memory as a revolutionary fighter for the oppressed masses of this world lives on. And it should.