5 comments about Twice As Good: Condoleezza Rice and Her Path to Power.

1. 
   Mabry brings some interesting information to his reader of one of the most despicable, incompetent, false and ruthless atavists ever to occupy the planet earth, moreover public office.
   
   Rice's scheming adoration for saying and doing whatever it took/takes to get on the top dais of a given colosseum, in her continually pathetic and aforementioned ruthless attempt to be the cynosure-at-all-times is beyond legend. Just one glance of her souless and vengeful countenance is all it should take of any observant soul to realize the monster who lies within............ This book delicately refers to same, but, alas, not enough to adequately educate its reader.
   
   Tragically, Rice's plan has worked to her proverbial Joesph Goebbels success and whether it's directing national/internation policy that gives new meaning to the word ignorant and imperious and, as a consequence manifesting the death of thousands and the ruination of a pragmatically imperfect (read : managable) world for the future, suppressing the truth - lying outright before the public or, eternally looking beyond embarassing in the face of various world politicos, starting with her speech impediment and then her eternal practice of obsfucation by using several thousand words to answer a simple yes or no question................, this poster child of an affirmative action poseur dilettante is a study, be it by Marcus Mabry of what "worst case scenario" truly is.



2. The author describes the life and times of Dr. Condoleezza Rice with
   both personal stories and historical events. Many of the childhood
   personal stories and recitations are quite moving. For instance, the Secretary's assimilation into Stanford University was discussed . The historic contention between the State and Defense Departments was highlighted. This inter-agency competition may limit the Secretary's
   options-particularly during times of war. A strength of the work highlights
   areas where the organizational design of the cabinet itself could be
   reconfigured or enhanced to benefit future presidencies.
   
   Several great crises presented early in the current Administration.
   For instance, Hurricane Katrina left thousands homeless in the USA.
   The Asian Tsunami left thousands dead with billions of dollars in
   property claims.
   
   The aftermath of terrorist attacks in New York City cost many lives and displaced people and businesses . Sunni insurgents destroyed the Golden Dome of the Askariya Mosque- one of the holiest places of Sh'ia Islam. The Hezbollah kidnapped an Israeli soldier and the Hamas prevailed in open elections to become a voting majority.
   
   Add to this the current Iraqi difficulties in coordinating internal security with an iterative withdrawal of the United States at some future time. The current fear centers around control of Baghdad when the United States leaves or withdraws to a position outside of the daily skirmishes between the Sunni, Sh'ia and protagonists outside of Iraq.
   
   The peacekeeping forces (whether American, Iraqi, United Nations or a
   combination of the above) in Iraq must manage historic contentions between warring factions while hoping that the conflict does not spill over into neighboring countries like Turkey or Iran. There have been significant border clashes between the Turks and the Kurds, as well as Iranian involvement in the conflict.
   
   The challenges ahead deal with the role of the United States in the region,
   as well as the transitioning of the American peacekeeping forces to
   Iraqi security forces and possibly United Nations forces for the long term.
   The long term vision involves the mix of security forces.
   
   Preferably, these forces will be Iraqi with a permanent contingent of United Nations forces concurrent with an iterative phasing out of U.S.A. involvement over a rational time horizon. The work could deal in more detail with the future role of the United States in Iraq and the Secretary's current work to re-shape that role.
   
   To obtain a verifiable ceasefire, the Sunni, Sh'ia, Kurds and mixed
   communities must come to believe that they could lead a better life in
   a loosely knit governance with a fair economic resource-sharing
   arrangement. Right now, these parties have not internalized this goal.
   And so, they are jockeying to gain the upper hand.
   
   This process will continue until the Iraqi security apparatus develops with some assistance (preferably) from the United Nations Peacekeeping forces.
   If the country ever gets to the point of a verifiable ceasefire, the next
   step is to deal with governance and the return of thousands of professional
   persons who fled the country for their lives and careers. These people
   need to return in order to reconstitute the country from the present
   disorder and destruction.
   
   All of these events rose and continue to rise in unison to present the Secretary with an unparalleled series of challenges not seen in recent years. The work discusses the Secretary's career in government and
   academia with carefully chosen events which provide a unique profile
   into the experiential domain over the previous decades of service.
   
   The author combines the Secretary's personal dynamic with the job
   of Secretary of State. In these times, the job of Secretary of State
   requires a facilitative persona with considerable practical and academic
   acumen. Dr. Condoleezza Rice is such a person.
   
   The book is highly recommended for students of government, politics,
   journalism and academe everywhere. Events are happening so quickly
   in the Middle East that a sequel to this book could be contemplated .



3. This is the first time I have ever reviewed a book. I felt compelled to
   compliment Mr. Mabry on the thorough research he so painstakingly did for
   this book. The book is easy to read and it keeps the reader interested in
   the subject without getting bogged down in minutiae.



4. This is an interesting look at Rice, her work and her life. But it leaves a lot of unanswered questions. I didn't feel as if I knew her any better after reading the book than I did before.
   
   At times she seems cold and uncaring. At other times, she seems warm and interesting. But I guess that could be said for all of us.
   
   This is a book worth reading. But don't expect to understand the subject. Perhaps she won't let anyone understand her. But this author certainly did not.



5. This really helped me to understand our Secretary of State. The book also provided a good review of what was happening in Birmingham during the 60's.

5 comments about The Wit & Wisdom of Ronald Reagan.

1. If you love and miss Ronald Reagan, this is a book that will feed your nostalgia while providing a warm glow to your day. The author has been a speechwriter and the author of several books, so he knows how to select great words. James C. Humes organizes the book in eight short chapters.
   
   Chapter 1 provides quotations from the Gipper. They are a sentence or two on a wide range of topics (and are arranged alphabetically by topic). Chapter 2 is a collection of quips and jokes and also organized by topic. Chapter 3 provides brief comments by Reagan on world leaders and a few historic figures. Chapter 4 presents brief statements by friends and enemies about Reagan. For example, we are reminded that it was Margaret Thatcher who said he won the Cold War without firing a shot and Pat Schroeder who called him the Teflon President.
   
   Chapter 5 consists of short anecdotes about Reagan's life and career. Chapter 6 puts some of Reagan's best zingers in their true historical context (which the media tries to twist and distort and forget - because they are invested in the notion that Reagan was a dunce. History is taking a much different assessment of the man and his two terms as President). Chapter 7 presents some of Reagan's best stories. They reveal a great deal about his beliefs and his character. Chapter 8 presents excerpts from his best speeches and provides some information about the context in which the speech was given and its effects. Again, this helps undo some of the work the liberals in the media do to insult and undermine his memory.
   
   While much of the material Reagan used was not original with him (some of it is), he delivered it masterfully and had keen insight on when to use it for best effect. This book is not only an enjoyable read, it makes a great gift for anyone in your life who is fond of Reagan or someone you want to learn about how great and effective a President he was.
   
   Reviewed by Craig Matteson, Ann Arbor, MI



2. This book is a mere fictional account of a president who was twice-elected by a near-braindead electorate who in 1979, quickly began to grow impatient with Jimmy Carter's lack of charisma and soon confused the 1980 campaign with the Oscars and awarded the gold statuette/the presidency to a man who was probably born with Alzheimer's Disease. But in their zealous haste, they quickly forgot about carefully considering more realistic, long-term policies that could serve THEM well, such as health care, tax cuts for THEM and not the rich, and perhaps a complete moratorium on immigration that continues to bloat an already overcrowded nation to this very day. But instead, the mindless electorate allowed itself to be seduced by the rhetoric of a well-groomed nitwit who overwhelmingly fooled them with ease with his prowess as an actor, and as a result, the idiots went on to gleefully elect him as the Incompetent-In-Chief beginning in 1980. And his oratory, which seduced millions of such mindless, blind flag-wavers, involved his reciting lines that were written for him to the the appaluse of said morons who had by that time, read too many Superman comic books and cheered as The Acting President hollowly insisted that "Government is the problem..." So hence, Reagan became their new Superman minus the costume. And as the S&L scandal came to tarnish America's image and the Iran-Contra scandal took hold, this man could not for anything, coherently answer a single question posed to him by the press for the duration of his entire presidency. Moreover, if it were not for Peggy Noonan, his speech writer, we more than likely would never had to have endured the likes of The Acting President. Perhaps Peggy herself will one day seek higher office in the Land That Time Should Forget.



3. Great quotes from our greates communicator, gives an insite to his sense of humor. I was expecting a little more to the book, more pages and anedotes.



4. Those of us who lived through The Regan Years know what an icon is and what Regan brought to the office. This book gives the reader an insight into not only his political life, but his private life. Love him or not you will realize what made him tick. He lent the aspect of "Class" to the office giving people the chance to laugh with him and say "Right on". This book should become a classic.



5. An amazing President with a keen sense of what to say and when to say it! His quips and one-liners were timely, humurous and extremely insightful! This book was a pleasure to read and will remain on my bookshelf for many years to come.

5 comments about Disturbing the Peace.

1. In his writing classes, Richard Yates said that the most important thing to him, as a writer, was "telling the truth." He wasn't interested in pyrotechnics. He was interested in technique as an instrument to be used in "telling the truth." He had us read "In Our Time" and "Nine Stories." He respected accuracy, economy, the telling detail. He had no interest in the fancy, the glib. He was obviously deeply influenced by Hemingway. For my money, Yates is better. This masterpiece will tell you what it's like to crack up. No Hollywood, nothing fancy, no self-pity. Just "telling the truth." Read this, then read the rest of Yates. You won't be sorry. The guy knew what he was talking about.



2. Some have said this is Yates' weakest work, and I suppose it might be, but I think credit has to be given to Yates for even managing to pull this off. This is a tough story to write, a man's journey from sanity to insanity. Yates stays in his usual third person narration all the way, even when the main character goes completely nuts, so his delusions become our delusions.

   It's not a pleasant experience by any stretch of the imagination - we see get a no-holds-barred view into Bellevue and the complete breakdown of the protagonist. There isn't a likeable character in the entire novel, which isn't that different from Yates' other works, but the problem here is that it's very tough to have any sympathy for the main character, John Wilder. In Yates' more successful books, no matter how nasty the characters, we can't help but to feel for their faults. Not so here.

   Disturbing the Peace may not have the amazing pace of The Easter Parade or the driving power of Revolutionary Road, but it's still a pretty good read. It's a tough book to find nowadays, so if you can get your hands on it, pick it up.




3. This novel, by one of my favorite late 20th century writers, is a compellingly realistic story of the downward spiral of an alcoholic. It's power comes from the exacting insights into the mundane existence of the characters trying to survive and thrive in modern society; along a view into the mind of a man making a step-by-step descent into a private hell. As Yates draws you into Wilder's mind, you find yourself,like the main character, unable to see the bottom, until you have made the slow descent into insanity.
   
   I found the book incredibly insightful, with accurate representations of the madness of addiction. The book never descends to the level of moralizing or sermonizing, and that makes it all the more powerful. Yates creates an empathy between reader and character, and that makes the outcome all the more gripping.



4. This is the story of John C. Wilder and his descent into insanity. Wilder is a highly strung hard drinking affluent salesman, a husband and father. He tries to hide his low self-esteem which stems from a mild dyslexia and being somewhat short in stature. He seeks to fill the void in his life through drinking and women.
   
   At one point, all of Wilder's ambitions seem within his grasp. He falls in love with a woman who encourages him to pursue his dream of producing films, and it seems he has a real talent for it. However, the seeds of insanity are sown within him. Time after time, he reaches out for help, to his family, to psychiatry, to AA, looking for understanding and support, but every reed breaks at his grasp. It is a disturbing novel. We are left doubting if anything could have averted his fate.
   
   Yates always gets everything right. The dialogue, speech cadences, observations, structure: his writing is a beautiful thing to observe. He is never simplistic. Yates has a reputation for being a devasting chronicler of American suburbia. He is that, but in this novel he shows that he can deliniate urban angst and despair as well.



5. is it a painfully telling portrait of american domesticity gone awry. it is a book you read from begining to end with as few breaks as possible.

5 comments about Dinner with Mugabe: The Untold Story of a Freedom Fighter who Became a Tyrant.

1. Although Heidi Holland met Mugabe only a couple of times, she still provides some good interviews and insights into Mugabe. He has unfortunately proved to be one of the worst leaders of the past couple of decades. Look at the results of his presidency--100,000% inflation, massive food shortages and an 80% unemployment rate. Zimbabwe is an embarrassment to Africa and it didn't have to be that way. Here's a detailed critique of what went wrong, where it went wrong and who is responsible. Mugabe is an intriguing figure because he began his career largely heralded by everyone as a freedom fighter like Nelson Mandela. To see how tragically it turned out, leaves many questions; it's a void Holland is clearly trying to fill.
   
   Holland writes well--the words are fluid and vivid and so it's easy to see how her years of reporting for the BBC, the Guardian and many other reputable news organizations has helped. The book is broken into 15 chapters with an index and bibliography for further reading. I do have one complaint, that I wish this were written by someone who had spent more time with Mugabe instead of relying mostly on interviews and a couple of brief encounters with him.
   
   However, I am glad this book was written and even more glad that it was published in America! I heard Heidi interviewed on the BBC and was dismayed that the book was available for sale only in South Africa. (Note: The book was rushed into production here so the British grammar remains. IE: magnetised instead of magnetized.) Yes, we are interested in the subject here too and are horrified by the still unfolding tragedy of Zimbabwe. If only there was something more we could do to help, but what?



2. This is a very interesting book and a poignant reminder of how Zimbabwe could have been a success story. The author is familiar with the history through her life as a radical and supporter of black rule in Rhodesia when she, and her husband a surgeon, lived in Ian Smith's outlaw colony. She interviews people who knew Mugabe well and then corrects their misrepresentations from her own knowledge. This is a very valuable technique and, with a man as private as Mugabe has always been, is as close as we will get to the inside story.
   
   Robert Mugabe was a studious child, educated by Jesuits and abandoned by his father at an early age. His mother, something of a mystic, was always convinced that he had a special destiny. The author describes Mugabe's mother, Bona, as "a cold, stern nun of a mother."(page 7) He has been emotionally crippled all his life although, with his first wife Sally, a flamboyant and colorful Ghanaian teacher, he had a loving and loyal marriage. She is described by some of the interviewees as warm but by others as imperious and corrupt.
   
   There is a very interesting interview with Mary Churchill Soames, Winston Churchill's younger daughter and wife of the last colonial governor of Rhodesia. Lord Soames became very close to Mugabe who, in a moment of truth just before the election of 1980, which put him in power, asked Soames to stay on for a lengthy transition period to help rule the country. "And Mugabe then said, 'I want you to stay because I need to be able to talk to somebody. I don't know anything about governing a country and none of my people do either.'" Soames told him that it would be impossible and Mugabe was on his own. When Lord Soames died, Mugabe and his wife arrived at Lady Soames' home uninvited to attend his funeral. This was an example of the rare personal empathy that Mugabe could establish with certain people.
   
   There is also a chapter on Denis Norman, a wealthy white farmer who had no interest in politics but who was prevailed upon by Mugabe to take several ministries to solve problems created by incompetent members of his cabinet. Here was another white man trusted by Mugabe, who insisted on European dress by all his ministers and who emulated English manners and education. In fact, the author comments that his education policies (similar to those in India, in my opinion) left the country with too many white collar workers clamoring for government jobs and not enough auto mechanics and other technical trades.
   
   Unfortunately, in another of the disastrous mistakes made by almost everyone in Zimbabwe, the white voters supported former dictator Ian Smith's party in the legislature, enraging Mugabe who had actually treated them quite fairly, even allowing Smith, who had imprisoned him, to live freely in the country and to seek office and serve in parliament. This was a serious mistake, compounded by Mugabe who then dismissed Denis Norman from his post as Agriculture Minister. He told Norman that the whites had chosen to treat him as a black and he would reciprocate, although he later called on Norman again and again to solve problems.
   
   The story continues to 2000, when Mugabe was losing his power to a new generation and was besieged by "war veterans" while he watched white farmers donate checks to his political opponent on television. The result was the disastrous occupation of the commercial farms and the descent of Zimbabwe to ruin. It seems to me, after reading this book, that Mugabe is no more in control of his country than is Assad of Syria. Both are basically run by warlords and secret police.
   
   The book is excellent and the lesson to me is that there were many opportunities for a happy, or at least happier, ending. Mugabe is an educated man, if emotionally stunted, and he did reach out to some of his white opponents for help early on. Some helped him and became friends. Many of the white residents foolishly voted for his enemies and fed his paranoia. I don't know what the chances for success in Zimbabwe were originally, but it seems that everything that could go wrong, did so. This is a very well written account of what happened. He is a monster now, but he wasn't always.



3. The writer starts with a mysterious dinner that she was not invited to in her own home. The mystery guest is Mugabe prior to his leap to power. Holland also states how she nearly lost her job by putting Mugabe's photo on the front page of a magazine that she was writing for. She ends with a recount of her last interview with Mugabe with only several questions that she asked him (including "Did you ever love someone?" His response was, "I must have. I have married twice.")
   
   Facts are missing in "Dinner with Mugabe." "Mugabe" by Martin Meredith outlines the facts behind the corruption of Mugabe's administration, including within his family. Holland talks (repeatedly and over many, many pages) about her accusation that Mugabe began to lose his moral compass when his first wife died-even though he had already had two children by his current wife when his first wife died.
   
   It's a poorly written book with very hard hitting few facts that you couldn't get from various websites.
   
   Save your money and buy "Mugabe" by Martin Meredith



4. A great account of Rhodesian politics and Robert Mugabe's era. Fascinating to read the events of the past and know that he's still in power - the story is still being told.
   
   The author's approach of analyzing Mugabe's behavior, uncovering & discussing the 'motivators' that are the root cause of his acts, is very well done.



5. With apologies to the above reviewer for twisting her review title, I agree with portions of the review. I found the book seemed to be an attempted psychoanalysis of Mugabe. Perhaps this would be a good idea by a professional psychiatrist or social worker but not from a journalist. For example at one point the author condemns Mugabe's immaturity for ordering his cabinet members to wear suits and ties to their meetings rather than t-shirts and other casual wear. The author states that due to Mugabe's immaturity and insecurity that he cannot be innovative and allow "traditional African wear" (combat fatigues and t-shirts!) I would assume that Mugabe only wanted to emphasize the serious nature of a cabinet meeting. When the author interviews Mugabe she does ask good questions relevant to the changes that have taken place over Mugabe's reign in Zimbabawe but again, in addition to quoting his remarks she then psychoanalyzes nearly every utterance. There are many other examples like this in the book.
   
   Other than that repeating annoyance the book was quite good. Heidi Holland has constructed a biography of Mugabe that provides insight into his seemingly nonsensical change from a visionary, pro-democratic leader into his current destructive tyranny. The book was filled with information on what caused Mugabe's change over the years and contains many interviews with relatives, co-workers, mentors, political friends and enemies and I felt it was a very worthwhile read for that reason despite the psychoanalytical shortcomings.

5 comments about Franklin Delano Roosevelt (The American Presidents).

1. This is a very good brief introduction to Roosevelt, and I highly recommend it to anyone wanting a brief understanding of Roosevelt. It is very easy to read and suitable for high school students. Being written by a man from Britain, it also shows how the world views FDR - as one of the most important leaders in world history.
   
   You will not acquire a thorough understanding of FDR by reading this book. For that I would suggest the huge "Champion of Freedom" by Conrad Black.
   
   In response to Mister Syzek, my understanding the post-war settlement is that Stalin broke violated the Yalta agreement, which was quite favorable to the west. FDR achieved most of what he wanted, including the stipulation that Eastern Europe was to have elections. But Stalin broke his promises and controlled Poland despite the agreements that FDR was able to extract from Stalan. FDR got the deal in writing. Stalin did not abide by it.
   
   Stalin was determined to control Poland no matter what, so Poland was firmly in his grip, despite what the actual terms of the agreement said. Staling went so far as to say that it was "a matter of life or death."
   
   Franklin Roosevelt was a geopolitical realist, and the reality is that the Soviet armies controlled Eastern Europe and Poland, and the USSR would be willing to fight - and win - to stay. The American people had no enthusiasm for yet another world war againt Russia. They wanted their soldiers home. Maybe you should ask the American people why they were not willing to suffer 5 million killed for Poland. You see, in America you must deal with these pesky things called voters and democracy.
   
   To complicate the matter, the Soviet Union took the brunt of the war (17 million dead), and Stalin was rigidly determined to secure a buffer between Mother Russia and Western Europe. Stalin would not have budged on his goal.
   
   So what Roosevelt obtained from Stalin was the best he could obtain - firm promises from Stalin to hold elections. It was Stalin who broke his promises. That made the Soviet Union look like the bad guy.
   
   Truman then waged the Cold War (without the millions of dead from a hot war) leading to an eventual liberation of Eastern Europe. It's no surprise that Reagan was a huge fan of Roosevelt, voted for him four times, and attended his third inauguration (a moving event for Reagan). Reagan then brought an end to the Cold War without firing a shot.
   
   You may be able to criticize Truman for not liberating Eastern Europe while American had a monopoly on the atomic bomb... or Eisenhower. After all, USSR staged a coup in Czechoslovakia and then staged a brutal crushing of the revolt in Hunguary in which tens of thousands were killed. Clearly this was in violation of the agreement that FDR was able to extract from Stalin. It was the USSR that broke the agreement. FDR did not sell out anyone.
   
   Then again, maybe the path Truman took was wise. Maybe waging a long-term cold against USSR was better than a violent real war. Maybe FDR realized that no European-based power has ever conquered Russia. Remember Napolean? Remember Hitler? Could even USA have defeated USSR in 1945? Maybe Roosevelt would have done things differently. We will never know because he died.
   
   As this book says, FDR was clearly moving to a get-tough posture against USSR. Indeed, FDR moved closer to one of his advisors who was anti-USSR. I suggest you read this book.
   
   At the same time, Roosevelt was an idealist in the Wilsonian tradition when realistic. He believed in the free determination of free people, but he was also realistic. For example, he essentially pushed for an end to world colonialism in his design for the post-war world. Churchill opposed this but he could do nothing about it. The British empire was too weak.
   
   By the way, Poland was not even a country at the start of World War One and was viewed by some in a similar way to the Baltic States of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia. Should American have gone to war over the Baltic States?
   
   This fine little book is a fine introduction to Roosevelt. It is the best brief book on Roosevelt. Read it if you want an easy introduction to FDR.
   
   If you want a more detailed study of Roosevelt's foreign policy then read Robert Dallek's Bancroft Prize-winning "Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy." My essay here pales in comparison. Or read Conrad Black's "Champion of Freedom."



2. The late Roy Jenkins, in assessing Roosevelt, rates him in the top three of all American Presidents, along with Washington and Lincoln. Whether you like FDR or whether you are one of his critics, it is hard to dispute Jenkins' conclusion. Jenkins believes that had FDR not run for a third term, he would have been one of the better, near great Presidents, but that it took WWII to make him the icon he became. Jenkins fails to point out that FDR did not create any appreciable number of private sector jobs prior to WWII and that, in fact, unemployment was almost as high as it was eight years earlier, when he took office. The reason may be that Jenkins had been a Labour Party member of the House of Commons, accordingly, his world view was that of a government interventionist. However, I ultimately agree that nontheless, FDR was, at least, a better than average President during the depression years, due to the great optimism that he conveyed.
   
   I believe that Jenkins is correct, that FDR became one of the greatest Presidents due to the war. He led the United States in a great mobilization effort. Certainly, responding to events can make one great and FDR's optimistic leadership during the war made him great. This does not mean that he is beyond criticism, and Jenkins offers very little of that. Again, as a Labour party menmber, he would not have been as staunchly anticommunist as a Conservative, such as Churchill or later, Thatcher. Therefore, he spares FDR of any criticism for Yalta. His view is that since the USSR already occupied Poland, there was nothing to give away.
   
   I must contrast this book with another book in the American Presidents series, Tom Wicker's biography of Eisenhower. Wicker could find almost nothing Ike did as President that did not deserve criticism. Jenkins, on the other hand, finds little, in FDR, to criticise. An example is his absolving FDR from any real criticism for not taking in more Jewish refugees during the holocaust.
   
   This series of books constitues short biographies, thus it is not possible for the authors to be comprehensive. However, Jenkins covers a lot of ground. He gives a lot of coverage to FDR's career prior to his presidency. This is something Wicker failed to do, in his biography of Eisenhower, regarding Eisenhower's prepresidential career. Still, there was much Jenkins could not cover. For example, FDR went to great legnths to hide his disability. In a television documentary, it was revealed that he always would hang on to the arm of either a secret service agent or one of his sons and, by pretty much thrusting his hips forward, would give the illusion of walking. The legnths FDR went to are certainly fascinating but, I recognize that this book was too short to cover it in depth.
   
   Perhaps this biography was a little too adoring. The fact that there is much to criticise does not detract from the fact, that ultimately, FDR was indeed one of the truly great Presidents. Still, Jenkins covers a lot of material and I highly recommend this short biography.



3. avoid books where the author's personality and florid prose obscure the subject. besides, what precisely does jenkins have against short sentences and one-dollar words?



4. The New Deal, Social Security, World War II. FDR was the greatest president of the 20th century. He was a polio victim with braces on his legs. Perhaps America needed such a leader to get it through the Depression and the war with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. We have seen the video of FDR addressing Congress following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor: "December 7, 1941, a day which will live in infamy!" Americans volunteered for military service in droves. They fought the Japs island by island. Army engineers built the Alaska Highway, stretching 1500 miles from Dawson Creek, Canada to Fairbanks. After Pearl Harbor, the fear was that Japan might take Alaska. Japan bombed the two western-most Aleutian Islands. Roosevelt was president the same years Adolph Hitler was in power in Germany, 1933-45. Roosevelt and his staunch ally, Winston Churchill, proved tougher than Hitler. Roosevelt was elected 4 times as there was no two-term limit. Roosevelt's archrival, Hitler, was born in 1889 in the Austrian town of Braunau. In his youth, Hitler wanted to be an artist. He lived and struggled in Vienna. It was there that he came to hate Jews and Communists. He believed in an Aryan master race. He fought against Britain in World War I. He joined the Nazi Party and went to prison after a failed coup. Hitler dictated Mein Kampf (My Struggles) to Rudolf Hess in prison. After his release, he reorganized the Nazi Party and surrounded himself with men like Himmler, Goebbels and Goering. Hitler became German chancellor in 1933. World War II began when Germany invaded Poland in 1939. Germany occupied France, bombed London and attacked Russia. The United States entered the war after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Americans landed at Normandy Beach on the coast of France on D-Day, June 6, 1944, and drove the Germans back. They met their Russian allies, who poured in from the east to crush the Nazis. Hitler and his companion, Eva Braun, committed suicide. It came to light that 6 million Jews had been exterminated in what is now called the Holocaust. America helped to rebuild Europe with the Marshall plan. Donald Rumsfeld's "Old Europe" became a suburb of the U.S. in light of the Soviet threat. The time has come the United States to put itself first. If the U.S is going to police the world, the world must pay for that protection. Police cannot work for free. Government is about war and money. Too often, it is a gang of thugs terrorizing its own people. Government should exist to serve. Its best form is democratic, not totalitarian, neither fascist nor Communist. Government needs to foster education, promote arts and sciences and care for the aged and disabled. It must encourage agriculture and facilitate transportation and communication.



5. This abridged version is read by Richard Rohan & he even tries his hand at FDR inflections. This is a pretty good overview of FDR's life,but you wouldn't expect much depth with 3.5 hrs. running time on a CD. Roy Jenkins died shortly after or maybe a little before this was completed. Arthur Schlesinger jr. edited. But the tone gets more reveverential towards the end. Not really Jenkins style so maybe Mr. Schlesinger finished. But there is no doubt that FDR was the most influential president of the 20th century. His impact is still very much with us.

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.

No comments about Some of It Was Fun: Working with RFK and LBJ.

5 comments about Amazing Grace: William Wilberforce and the Heroic Campaign to End Slavery.

1. This is not an all-emcompassing biography of William Wilberforce. Its author tips his hat to John Pollock who did write the reformer's most comprehensive biography. But for those who want an overview of the anti-slavery movement in Britain and its players, this is an excellent choice. I found Mextaxas's witticisms to be a deligtful contrast to its grim subject. When Wilberforce won a seat in Parliament from a previously safe seat in York, the author described it as "an unprecedented and truly shocking leap, like someone pole-vaulting into the balcony at the opera [and saying], is this seat taken?" Some of the descriptions of cruely to animals, so common at this time, and the conditions of the slave ships make for difficult reading, but it is important that we read it as slavery and animal cruelty continue to this day. The only problem I had with this non-fiction work is its lack of an index.



2. This is a well written book with lots of insight, humor and a good snapshot of life in 18th and early 19th century England. BUT, there is no index which was frustrating for me when using this book to prepare a lecture for my adult Sunday School class and no bibliography and no notes which buts some question to the validity of some of the material.



3. I hate to judge a book I haven't read, but a previous reviewer stated that this book has no index. That to me is a No-No. It suggests the author is either lazy or does not wish to be challenged or, at best, does not wish to open his work to be examined by others. Wilberforce was an extremely important figure in the anti-slavery movement. Any biography of him simply HAS to be open to scrutiny by others in the field. As someone who has written a biography (Thomas Garrett) an Index is an essential guide to help readers find what the author has to say about the subject, as well as about other figures and events in the subject's life. Without an Index, the reader is asked to accept what the author said about the subject as being the first and last word. No serious researcher will accept that. So I will delete this book from my Wish List and wait untill a serious biography is written.



4. William Wilberforce shunned his wealthy political class, sacrificed his powerful career and fought against a wicked tradition by dedicating his life fighting the human scourge, called "Slavery". He became an icon for oppressed people all over the world.
   How ironic is it that "Todays" world knows little or nothing about William Wilberforce, the conscience of the world and the justice crusader who began it, before it became fashionable? The vote to abolish slavery came in July 1833, the month that William Wilberforce died. The victory was a befitting epithet to his life and career.



5. This book is not only a masterpiece of authorship, but also one of content. Unfortunately, as usual, the liberal media has considered it as a Christian treatise, and therefore, unworthy of dissemination or discussion. I have never read a better author, or a better historical explanation of the battle for human rights. I predict, for whatever it is worth (probably nothing), that he will be eventually recognized for his extrodinary talent. Hey, out there, are you listening!!!!!

5 comments about A Man Called P The Story of Peter Marshall.

1. As someone related to those who have served in the clergy, I found Catherine Marshall's ardent tribute to her late husband, Senate Chaplain Peter Marshall particularly heartwarming and inspiring.
   As her husband (who became affectinately known as "Twittering-Birds Marshall" because of the flowery phrasing he gave to his wonderful sermons) painted vivid imagery with the parables he told, she paints a vivid image of his all-too-brief life.
   Through her words, we see the winsome Scottish lad who suffers the tragic loss of his father at age four, whose hardscrabble experiences and humble beginnings would lead him to have great compassion for others in similar circumstances, the spiritual depth he developed on the occassions when his Inner Voice saved him from accidental death, the inspiration he received from fellow Scottish churchman Eric Liddell, his Scottish wit, and fun-loving style. He was a man I feel I would have liked, as did many, and had he lived a few more years, he might have been highly instrumental in the struggle for Civil Rights, judging from the deferrence he gave to the writings of African American men of faith, James Weldon Johnson, and George Washington Carver, and his expressed concern for underpriviledged minorities. His sermon, "The American Dream", is still very timely in the modern world.
   Readers follow him through his immigration to the United States, his entrance into the clergy, his meeting of Catherine, the difficulty of finding time to spend with her due to mounting ministerial duties, his marriage, his camaraderie with other ministers, the high emotion of embracing U.S. Citizenship, the use of his sharp sense of humor to win people over to Christ, his enthusiasm for board games, sports, life itself, and also his great love for his family and humanity in general.
   I can hear the melodic trill of his brogue when his quotes appear in the story as his wife recaptures the rhythm of his speech patterns, and each chapter is headed with appropriate Biblical verses that summarize their contents.
   Dr. Marshall was nonimated as Senate Chaplain while serving in the church where Abraham Lincoln once worshipped, and upon his election became a much-loved confidant of Senators on both sides of the aisle. Michigan Senator, Arthur Vandenberg (who himself passed away around the time of this book's publication in 1951), affectionately called him, "Dominie", the Dutch word for "Parson".
   We share the couple's delight at the birth of their son, "Wee Peter" in the years prior to Dr. Marshall's rise to the Chaplaincy of the Senate, the challenges to their faith brought on by Catherine's bout with tuberculosis, and Peter's heart trouble, and see how much prayer meant in their lives at such time. We also see how Peter's illness inspired others to pray. But we are also made aware that not everyone admired the Marshalls and that the Good Reverend was subjected to anti-immigrant backlash as well as misinterpretations of the meaning of his sermons. He had his moments of self-doubt, as does everyone.
   Dr. Marshall's instinctiveness in changing his sermon for the graduating class of the Annapolis Naval Academy, which he gave just hours before the announcement of the attack on Pearl Harbor is formidable, and through his warm, consoling mannerisms, Christ became warm and alive in the hearts and minds of many. Through Marshall's example, many lives were changed for the better.
   We also see how this spiritually attuned couple helped produce some of Peter's best sermons in joint ventures that made their life's pilgrimage a real partnership.
   Five days after his attendance of President Truman's second inaguration, this fine representative of Christ on Earth was lost to the world. But his sweetness, and love for his wife were evident until the very end. As he passed from this life, the Holy Spirit gave Catherine the strenghth to carry on with her life, and to console others. As she worked on her late husband's story, he appeared to her in a dream, providing encouragement, but still letting that sparkling Scottish wit shine through, perhaps more eminently, in the afterlife.
   The last words he spoke to her, "See you in the morning", would carry her through the years.--Through the acclaim of this biography, the 1955 film of the same name in which Richard Todd gave an adorable performance as Peter, an eventual second marriage, the entrance of her son into the Presbyterian ministry, her own success with the novel, "Christy" and other religious literature, and eventually, her own undoubtably happy reunion with Peter in March, 1983.
   Her son honors the rich spiritual legacy of his parents by continuing the family tradition. As did his own father, Peter John Marshall lost his father in childhood, and perhaps strives to know him by following in his footsteps. Perhaps he knows the Senate Chaplain who was his father better than the elder Dr. Marshall knew his father through the availability of the Senate Chaplain's recorded sermons and writings.
   Christ said"...Whosover liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?"--John 11:25, 26
   As the life of Dr. Marshall continues to inspire many all these years later, I'll say that I do.



2. I have both the movie and the book. I saw the movie when I was a child and it made an impression on me. I never forgot it. I have a grandson who is becoming a minister and I wanted him to see the movie. I haven't read the book yet, but I will soon. I feel sure it is better than the movie. I believe Peter Marshall was an outstanding minister and we can learn a lot from him. I am now 60 years old. This man has touched many lives over the years even since he died. I also have the book of his sermons. Catherine Marshall has kept his memory going and she is an awesome writer.



3. Dr. Peter Marshall's story about his rough childhood with the endless desire to go to sea,
   his eventual immigration to America after the LORD's calling him into the ministry,
   his seminary education,
   his marriage to Catherine Marshall (then Catherine Wood),
   his pastorate at N.Y. Avenue Presbyterian Church in Washington
   D.C.,
   the birth of his son Peter John Marshall,
   his appointment to the position of Chaplain to the U.S. Senate,
   and his tragic death in 1949,
   are all wonderfully brought to life in this amazing biography of one of America's greatest preachers.
   Catherine Marshall has been a blessing to my life and has brought me closer to Christ through her many Christian books. Dr. Marshall himself has allowed me to probe deeper into the meaning of salvation by faith alone and his audio tape entitled "Can You be Wrong?" available at Peter Marshall Ministries - have been instruments used by God in the event of the salvation of many. His sermons included at the end of this book, especially the one entitled, "The American Dream", has been especially pertinent to issues that still exist in the USA today, and served as my Speech and Debate piece as a high school senior. Although Dr. Marshall was more of a story teller, rather than an exegetical minister, his sermons are up there with Dr. John MacArthur and other ministers who I love and trust. I would recommend this biography over the biographies of any other minister I have read to date.
   If the LORD had this much in mind for a poor Scottish immigrant with nine and a half dollars in his old brown wallet when he arrived at Ellis Island almost 90 years ago...imagine what he could have in store for you and me!



4. Peter Marshall was a man of God and yet he contemplated suicide in the play, "A Man Called Peter," based on this book. One of the school plays during the year I took Dramatics class and we were able to watch rehearsals. He was an inspiration to all who knew him. Some of his sparkling observations in our country are expressed here where he had a great ministry as minister to the presidents (before Billy Graham), he began in Birmingham, Alabama, as a newspaper reporter. He believed that each of us is responsible for helping our Christian brothers and sisters, especially the weaker ones.
   
   In one of his soul-searching, gut-wrenching sermons, he compared America to his native Scotland: "We have in the United States today a higher standard of living than in any other country, or at any other time in the world's history. We have more automobiles, more picture shows (movies), more telephones, more money, more swing bands, more radios, more television sets, more night clubs, more crime, and more divorce than any other nation in the world." In another, this truism based on Jesus' teachings" God speaks through our circumstances and guides us, closing doors as well as in opening them." All things work together for good for those who love God. The promises of God found in the Bible can give us hope, but many times we do not claim them as our own until we face a crisis.
   
   Andrew was chosen to be the Patron Saint of Scotland, and Saint Andrew's cross, a diaganol white cross on a blue ground, is the foundation on which St. George's cross of England and St. Patrick's cross of Ireland were laid to make the Union Jack. Alec, my youngest (son of the oldest son) was born on March 17 and reportedly looks just like Geoffrey (named after Chaucer). "A tired-ooout rail splitter, crouched over his tattered books, by candlelight at the day's end, preparing for his future, instead of snoring or sky-larking like his co-laborers, Abraham Lincoln cut out his path to later immortality in his spare time. Georgia Sharpe, an admirer of Peter Marshall, wrote: "A stranger entered a church during the sermon and took a seat in the back row. After a while, he leaned forward and asked the elderly man in front of him, "How long hs he been preaching?" "For about forty years, I think," the man replied. "I'll stay then," said the stranger;" he must be almost finished.
   
   Peter Marshall left behind just such home-spun philosophy in his teaching and ministering to the members of government at First Presbyterian Church in Washington, D.C. and a wonderful wife who shared (as did JoNell Allen) her husband's sermons with the public.



5. The language is eloquent and so much different than the writing today. That alone sets it apart. As for the content, it is very moving and humorous. A great story-one not to be forgotten.

5 comments about Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush.

1. This book is a well researched and documented examination of the excesses of the Bush/Cheney presidency and how this came to be. In the book, Dean looks at the issues of secrecy within the White House, lying and dirty tricks. And, if there is anyone, anywhere who knows more about this subject I would love to see who they are.
   
   Dean does a wonderful job of comparing and contrasting the current regime with the Nixon presidency and writes in a clear, concise and easy to read manner. I look forward to reading his other 2 books, as to learn more about what has gone wrong with the current Republican Party.
   
   This is a must read for any American who wants to see this country remain free!



2. Worse Than Watergate by John Dean is worth reading just because of the title and who he is. John Dean, counsel to the Nixon White House, says that the Bush/Cheney White House is "worse than Watergate" -- that is like Jesse Ventura calling someone an obnoxious loudmouth! The book was published in 2004, ahead of the presidential election, so by the time I found it on the bargain table, it was somewhat dated. However, Bush/Cheney are STILL in power, and while the country has largely turned against them because of the war in Iraq and the slumping economy, Dean's real case against them describes the more subtle ways that the Bush II administration has weakened our democracy.
   
   The main beef that Dean has with Bush and Cheney is their secrecy. True, this is definitely a politically motivated treatise written by neither a scholar nor journalist, but it is also true that Dean has researched his topic well and that he has some first-hand experience in the matter of damage caused by a secretive executive branch. Worse Than Watergate is not going to sway Bush supporters -- if they haven't lost their confidence in his leadership by now, they are never going to budge. But, Dean has an interesting perspective, and if you are capable of separating the facts from the commentary, this short book is definitely worth the read.



3. This book is a bit dated as it was originally written before the 2004 elections but it has been updated a bit past that point so it still has relevancy today. Any impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney and their minions should use this book for talking points. Mr. Dean points out all the horrific and illegal things this White House has done that are far and above what President Nixon ever did. It also makes the "impeachment" of Bill Clinton look even sillier than the total farce it was. These two (and others in the administration) should be in jail.



4. While the book is old (written prior to the 2004 election) and politics tends to change very rapidly, there is still quite a lot of relevant information. Dean dissects the Bush regime and compares it to Nixon's. He points out what Nixon did wrong and how Bush is following the same path. He does so in an intellectual manner and doesn't resort to Bush bashing or name calling like some books I have read. All of Deans points are well thought out and backed with evidence from sources from across the political spectrum. Overall, even though this is an old book, it is still a very good and worthwhile read.



5. I've read most of John Dean's books and enjoy them. This was a good book, very interesting and informative about the evil tenure of Bush/Cheney. I'm sure it's dead on with what went on behind the scenes and how we got into the sorry mess of a country that we are today largely due to these 2 idiots.