5 comments about Let Me Stand Alone: The Journals of Rachel Corrie.

1. Maya Angelou said, "One isn't necessarily born with courage, but one is born with potential. Without courage, we cannot practice any other virtue with consistency. We can't be kind, true, merciful, generous, or honest."
   
   Very touching journal by a very courageous young girl
   
   The negative reactions to the book, I'm afraid, prove importance of the issue Rachel gave her life for. Many Americans remained "passively" approving of the occupation despite not just its blatant imperialist aggressiveness but its sheer irrationality and absurdity.
   
   The best way to see an issue objectively, with the efforts of finding a solution, is to put yourself in the position of both sides. This book will definitely help you see the Palestinian issue the way it is, and not the way the media wants you to see it.
   
   No individuals, no interest groups, no lobbies have influenced the writing of this book. A pure message straight from the heart of a first line observer.
   
   A MUST READ!



2. Let me state upfront that (i) I had never heard of Rachel Corrie before in my life until I read this book, and (ii) I am generally speaking not on the same political wavelength as Rachel seemed to be. That does not mean that I close-minded. Indeed, when I read the inner-flap of the book, I was intruiged and picked this up.
   
   In "Let Me Stand Alone: The Journals of Rachel Corrie" (324 pages), Rachel's family (primarily her parents) have compiled miscellaneous writings of Rachel: diary entries, letters, emails, etc. I must admit that at times I did not understand the flow of these writings from a chronological perspective, as they seem to be all over the map. Another thing that is not clear to me, and where in my mind the book falls short, is that these writing do not provide an insight or explanation why it is that this young woman came to the political and community conclusions which she reached. They just are there, and you have to accept them. Rachel writes about her student exchange trip to Russia that "I have never been so awake--painfully, poignantly awake--as I was in Russia" and in years later she refers to this trip as one of the most pivotal moments in her life. But that said, I don't understand why that is, as very little information is in fact revealed what Rachel did in Russia.
   
   There are a number of fictional short stories in the book (such as the "Mom, I don't want the car" one) that I had a hard time following or understanding. Several of them went on far too long. The last part of the book, when Rachel goes off to the Gaza Strip, are sad, that goes without saying. While I respect everyone's opinion, it neverthless strikes me frankly as misguided. I can only imagine the grief of her family, begging the question: what good did it do?



3. Journals offer private thoughts not intended for an audience; rather, they serve as a means of sorting out life's challenges and exposing one's inner demons. Let Me Stand Alone: The Journals of Rachel Corrie leads the reader into Rachel's inner world as she negotiates the challenges of adolescence and early adulthood. Sadly, her life comes to an untimely end when she faced down a bulldozer that was about to destroy a Palestinian home in Gaza.
   
   Early in her life, Rachel's literary abilities shine through her poetry as she expresses her delight in nature and small creatures that cross her path. At eleven, on the death of her grandfather, she remarks her own selfishness as she sleeps while others are grieving. She says, "I have already grown bored of being sad and I am ready to go back to being normal." How wise she is to identify that universal feeling.
   
   Many of Rachel's musings reflect her attitude toward death. At fourteen, she says, "Death smells like homemade applesauce as it cooks on the stove." At eighteen, "If I die today,...you must burn the papers under my bed...to charred leaves of ash...You must silence my dead voice...so it will not embarrass my memory." Her journals definitely reflect her inner thoughts, conflicts, and behaviors that might be embarrassing, and I wonder whether she would have wanted them published.
   
   A trip to Russia became a turning point for Rachel. A girl who lived a sheltered, privileged life, she returned from her journey a woman with a mission, awakened by "the initial disappointment in discovering that my government really did lie to me about the Russians, and in the massive absence of justice in the world, and again...in discovering my participation in the subjugation of other people." This experience led her to become an activist during her college years and then took her to Israel to support the Palestinians as they suffered through repeated US-backed Israeli attacks on their families and homes.
   
   Because of the intensely personal nature of the writings, it was difficult at times to read the revelations in these pages--the self-deprecation, the self-destructive behaviors, the lists of self-improvement tasks--and I felt uncomfortable looking into the private thoughts of someone who didn't sound as if she would like me to read them. I also felt that the pace of the book was slow and the final outcome depressing. But it comes together at the end, when Rachel writes long emails to her family and friends outlining her political convictions and showing her journalistic potential. Her life abruptly ended just three weeks short of her twenty-fifth birthday.
   
   by Susan M. Andrus
   for Story Circle Book Reviews
   reviewing books by, for, and about women



4. From afar it might be easy to write off or embrace Rachel Corrie because of her strong position on the Palestinian situation in Israel.
   
   Whatever one's views on that, this book shows that Rachel was an extraordinary and beautiful human being, a person of conviction with a special gift for expressing herself as she discovers herself and the world. If you want to know more about Rachel Corrie, I suggest looking past the media stories and the opinion columns. Read the words of Rachel herself.
   
   I am grateful that the book has allowed me to encounter Rachel as a person, even after her tragic death.
   
   By the way, I had never heard of Rachel Corrie before coming across an advance copy of this book.



5. Get into the heart and soul of a true martyr and American hero: Rachel Corrie, by reading this very special book. Rachel a young college student, was murdered in cold blood by an Israeli-Jewish Soldier, while he was demolishing another helpless Palistinians family home. The bulldozer operator ran over Rachel 3!; that's three times, to make sure she was dead and that she suffered horribly. Cheney, Rice and Double Dumbya turned their backs on the Corrie family, who to this day are seeking justice for their young daughters murder by a Jewish soldier on (what's left/not very much) Palestinian land. This book gets you into the pureness and ultruistic heart of Rachel Corrie. Kate Bowman wrote an article talking more about Rachel Corrie in "Now it's Okay to Kill Americans?" Bowman elaborates more on how her death was ignored. Kate Bowman's article is available on amazon. Remember Rachel Corrie, a pure and peaceful fighter for the Helpless, Homeless and destitude Palestinians. Don't forget: "Bush Lied and Thousands and Thousands Died!" Dumbya refuses to do anything about Rachel Corries murder. Rachel Corrie: A top role model of the world for strenghth, conviction and human decency. Visit:www.rachelcorrie.com

5 comments about Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative.

1. After hearing about this book a great deal from many people, I finally had to give it a read. What I got was a mostly well written account about how Brock gave the neo-con movement exactly what they wanted in terms of what can only be called propaganda. Brock does a good job in exposing the oft-ridiculed "vast right-wing conspiracy".
   
   But it makes a boring read at times, what with long lists of people and publications. And it seems just a bit self-serving at times, like he is trying to say, "Oh, how bad I was to do all this, but I was very good at it." And, after all, he does say exactly what I, as a liberal person, want to hear about those on the right who keep insisting that people who believe like me are traitors.
   
   I respect Mr. Brocks conversion to the left, and I like his work with mediamatters.org, but I am not sure I plan to read any more of his books.



2. In his 1950 study of the authoritarian personality, Theodor Adorno constructed a political-psychological profile of people he called "pseudo-conservatives." These were people who called themselves conservatives but in truth adhered to political agendas that betrayed the ideals of individual freedom and free markets. Pseudo-conservatives were motivated by hate, fear, and power, not the desire to conserve or guarantee liberty. A few years later, the eminent historian Richard Hofstadter appropriated Adorno's term in describing what he called "the paranoid style in American politics." In Adorno and Hofstadter's day, this paranoid style of pseudo-conservativism was still in its embryonic state, personified by the rantings of Joseph McCarthy but still far from being the game plan for the Republican Party as a whole. David Brock's Blinded by the Right chronicles how this movement slithered its way into power long before anyone had heard of Karl Rove, whose name isn't even listed in the index.
   
   Blinded by the Right amazingly combines the political history of a loathsome political movement with the personal story of a sympathetic individual who found himself at the center of that movement. Always an idealist among opportunists, Brock's entrée to conservatism was admirable enough, as he was a former Kennedy liberal who was turned off by Berkeley protest-ologists who simply shouted down their adversaries, thus betraying the cause of free speech that had galvanized the campus in the glory years of the 1960s. But those ideals quickly dissolved into an us-versus-them battle which was motivated by a hatred for liberal enemies more than anything else. Ironically, Brock and his colleagues had much more in common with late 60s revolutionaries like the Weathermen, with their constantly escalating rhetoric of destroying the establishment, and Stalinists in the Communist Party, who enforced the party line by threatening dissenters with the charge that they were helping "the other team."
   
   Blinded by the Right is an essential chronicle of a political movement and a historical era, but somehow it is even more than that. Its personal narrative of a young person's rise to power and fame, followed by descent into disillusionment and depression, is gripping enough for Hollywood. Brock came out as a homosexual while he was in college but then shoved himself back into the closet as he ascended to celebrity status on the Right, whose agenda became increasingly homophobic after the collapse of communism left them without the enemy they had depended on for so long. Brock now sees his willingness to parrot right-wing ideology as part of his attempt to fit in with the movement when he secretly knew didn't, and he sees the vitriol that he spewed in his writing as a subconscious expression of his own self-hatred. In fact, Brock offers many penetrating insights into the psychology of his right-wing former colleagues, and for the most part they appear to be a miserable bunch prone to textbook cases of projection.
   
   Brock's break from the right corresponded with his personal move toward self-acceptance. It is heroic act of liberation that sometimes made me want to stand up and cheer for him, but it was clearly a journey full of pain. His liberation proceeds in stages, with Brock initially portraying himself as a victim, and then only later coming to grips with his own complicity and eagerness to serve the movement. Changed but not bitter, Brock comes out the other side as a very wise man who can see clearly now only because he is able to accept himself, his past, and his imperfections. I hope we'll see more books like this in the future coming from the current throng of right-wingers, but I'm not holding my breath, because this required a ton of courage and compassion, and that's precisely what this movement lacks most.



3. There isn't much I can say about this book that hasn't already been said in other favorable reviews here. All I'll add is that even if you allow for the zeal of Brock's re-converson to liberal prinicples and some bitterness towards his former conservative and neocon mentors and paymasters, there is much in this book that rings frighteningly true. Most fascinating is Brock's inside look at the anti-Clinton smear machine of which he was part - and which, no doubt, is warming up for 2008. Arm yourself with knowledge that you'll need if Hillary runs for President. Read this book.



4. I wish I had read this sooner but I had shied away from it because I figured that Mr. Brock was a David Horowitz in reverse (and we know what an opportunistic scum bag Horowitz is). But this is an important and authentic work from an insider who shows us exactly how the neo-nazi, neocon "conservatives" took over and nearly destroyed our American nation (we are a nation, not a "homeland" or "fatherland"). We must take back our country in November (we started that process in the 2006 elections) and be rid of the Republican war criminals but that is not enough: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Tenet, Coulter/Limbaugh (Goebbels), and those already convicted (Libby, Abramoff, Delay, Cunningham, Foley, Craig, etc.) need to be brought before a duly appointed Tribunal to answer for their crimes against humanity and particularly their crimes against the American people (including our brave soldiers and my friend Pat Tillman, who they killed). Richard Clarke could be the chief witness for the prosecution. We need more jails to house the corporate crooks.
   I had the privilege of meeting Barry Goldwater and his wonderful wife Peggy when I lived in Arizona in the early 90's. Senator Goldwater was an honorable, real conservative and he was appalled by the Falwells, Robertsons, Gingriches, etc. If you consider yourself a principled conservative, you must read this book and help us remove the cancers from our society that Mr. Brock so ably describes. Through it all, I have believed there are more good people than evil people in our nation ("the better angels of our nature", as Lincoln said): some start out evil like Brock but then their human heart and conscience kicks in; let's kick out every last slime bag with an (R) by his or her name this November and rebuild our nation.



5. Brock is a gay former flame-throwing GOP-"insider" conservative writer who increasingly felt "like a Jew in Hitler's army" due to growing Republican gay-bashing; because of that discomfort, Brock repented his conservative screeds and returned to his liberal roots. En route, readers also learn that neither Brock nor many others didn't understand the supposed rationale behind many of their positions (they just toed the "party line"), and that integrity, fair play, civility were anachronisms even to some high-placed GOP judges and other leaders.
   
   Brock also credibly presents the rationale for Justice Thomas' nomination (would split Democrat opposition due to some representing areas with high black populations), and why his accusers were probably correct (eg. after a later expose, Thomas privately admitted being into porn), confesses to frequently writing mindless drivel (even more surprising was the sometimes support of George Will and New York Times book reviewers), and provides first-hand documentation (names, dollar amounts) of vendettas financed against the Clinton's, etc.
   
   Bottom Line: Republicans would undertake any manner of illegality to pursue perceived Clinton (and others) illegality - this was justified by their pursuit of a "higher good." Lies and hypocrisy - no problem!
   
   An excellent book!

No comments about Benjamin Disraeli (Jewish Encounters).

5 comments about My Past and Thoughts.

1. A worthwile read for anyone with an interest in 19th century history - or Russian thought. Herzen's narrative begins with Napoleon's retreat from Moscow and winds on through Nichlos II's reign to the larger events of Napoleon the III's Europe. At times a witty and fascinating account of both Russia and Europe during a crucial era, Herzen occasionally drifts off into somewhat tedious personal speculation.



2. Herzen is one of the many authors whom Americans never are exposed to and rightfully should be. He was a great thinker; he writes lucidly (although tending toward personal speculation.... you've got to remember-- he was living at a similar time to Tolstoy who does the same thing....) and CAN BE surprisingly contemporary for someone so long dead....

   It's understandable why Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, and Solzenitzen (sp?) are much more widely read than he is: they are better novellists and never got cursed by the fact that they were socialists (such a dirty word in the US!) BUT, Herzen is definately someone whom anyone trying to pawn themselves off as a psuedo-intellectual should read.

   One problem with this book: some of his best stuff is obviously just not in here (as it is his memoirs....) His philosophy is brilliant; some of his letters to his son are as moving as any I can think of (excepting perhaps Rilke's to the young poet...)

   His memoirs are a definate must-read.... for whomever is reading this review.... Just buy the book!




3. In the years before Lenin and the harsh, bleak application of socialist thought to autocracy there existed a group of philosophers who believed in the beauty of the commune and its cooperation with a Republican government. Britain had Robert Owen and his factory town, the French had Fourier (the phalanstery) and Proudhon among others, and the Russians had Herzen. Here existed a time where the leading academics saw folly in violent revolution, and Herzen was by no means a demogogue willing to mobilize the Russian peasants in a siege of Moscow like a simple Pugachev or a Decembrist.

   This perhaps explains Herzen's stern dislike of Marx and Engels, for he saw too much of the Robespierre in them and their ideas.

   Herzen believed in democracy almost in a modern American sense. Indeed, much of the work is laced with arguments in disfavor to the flowering of socialism in Europe, citing particularly the cruelty of the police in France during 1848: "The Latin world does not like freedom, it only likes to sue for it." Certainly the tendencies of the Germans were no more progressive either. Instead at one point in the text the author suggests that those who "can put off from himself the old Adam of Europe and be born again a new Jonathan had better take the first steamer to some place in Wisconsin or Kansas."

   The selections and abridgement of the text emphasize Herzen's basic belief about reform: revolution is gradual. One has to breed engrained stupidity out of the ruling class and make laws that better everyone, like the English and Americans. Laws make a better society, not people: "The Englishman's liberty is more in his institutions than in himself or his conscience. His freedom is the 'common law.'"

   The text covers the demise of Herzen, culminating in his rejection on his deathbed by the new revolutionary ("terrorist") camps in Russia, headed ideologically by Chernyshevsky and best seen in the widespread incendiary and murderous practices of Sergei Nechaev. These are all topics of the years after Herzen's death, the tragic history of the latter half of the nineteenth century and the prelude to the pall of 1917.




4. One finds oneself drawn to Herzen. He comes off as urbane, generous, strong, empathetic to those suffering under the Tsar (and all tyrannies), dedicated to the cause of bringing freedom to his homeland and a wonderful writer. He seems to have known, or at least bumped into, all the luminaries of the Russia and the Europe of his time.
   
   This abridgement by Dwight McDonald, dating I believe from 1968, is of its time. The editor tells us that he excised those portions of the narrative dealing with Herzen's marriage, his wife's affair with a close friend of Herzen's, the loss of his mother and son in the sinking of a passenger boat and the death of his wife shortly thereafter. I wish that material had been included. I suppose an abridgement done in 2007 might include only those portions and nothing else, as we have less high seriousness and more interest in scandal and tragedy. In any case, I would have loved to read Herzen on these more personal topics.
   
   I should add that it may be my spotty background in 19th Century European history but I was lost any number of times as I read. Herzen is telling us about contemporary men, events, controversies and schools of thought. There are numerous footnotes identifying the people he refers to but I needed more--no doubt the references would have been understood by any educated reader at the time but that was then.
   
   That said, I'm glad I made the effort and I wish I could have met him.



5. There is no question that it is good to have this edition of Alexander Herzen's autobiography, "My Past and Thoughts," though it is considerably abridged. The work is deservedly praised as one of the great autobiographies of the West. Well written and colorful, it acquaints us with the mind and spirit of one of the most important political figures of the nineteenth century. Herzen, darling of radicals and nemesis of conservatives (wrongly, I believe), is a seminal thinker and activist of his time.
   Herzen, a Russian by birth but an internationalist in spirit, knew most of the radicals of the era, Bakunin, Mazzini, Garibaldi, Louis Blanc. Yet he was in a way not one of them. He was too hardheaded and too reasonable--he knew what worked and what didn't. Raised in autocratic Russia, he had experienced prison, exile--and fame as a writer.
   This edition has been abridged by Dwight MacDonald, unfortunately leaving out some crucial parts, for example his relations with his wife, Natalie, and other more domestic issues. However, the original appeared in five volumes, and something had to be excised to make this edition manageable. Those who wish to read the complete autobiography should look up the Knopf four-volume edition of 1968. Nonetheless, this edition will do for most of us. It's a gem.
   
   Philip Brantingham
   Chicago, IL

5 comments about The Wrong Stuff: The Extraordinary Saga of Randy "Duke" Cunningham, the Most Corrupt Congressman Ever Caught.

1. Lily Tomlin once said no matter how cynical you are, you can't keep up. Mostly, I've viewed Congress as corrupt in those small, corrosive and bipartisan ways: a campaign donation begets wording in a bill, a vote or a visit. But, the size and scale of Duke Cunningham's pocket-bulging corruption boggles the mind. It must be read to be believed. And, the authors carefully inserted an important qualifier in their subtitle: the Most Corrupt Congressman EVER CAUGHT. All of which makes you wonder: What happened to all those promised reforms on ethics and lobbying?



2. The author's claim that Cunningham was a corrupt Congressman is true, but his claim that he is the "Most Corrupt Congressman Ever Caught" is not true. Congressman William Jefferson has been caught The FBI seized $90,000 in marked bills in Jefferson's home freezer. That cold cash is just the tip of the iceberg of the evidence against "Dollar Bill" Jefferson.
   There is a major difference between Cunningham and Jefferson. Cunningham was a brave and decorated combat pilot. By contrast, Jefferson did not serve in combat and may never have served in the military at all.
   This book is a one-sided hatchet job.



3. Don't forget, Duke was using his influence and reputation as a war hero to steer defense contracts. He was stealing from the Armed Forces in time of war, a traitor to his country and his own men.
   
   Not only is Duke at the center of the Hookergate scandal, this ties into the US attorney scandal, as well as the indictment of Brent Wilkes and former CIA official Kyle "Dusty" Foggo. The Wilkes/Foggo debacle is apparently tied to bribery at the CIA. Google their names and "IranConta" to see how many of the characters in the Cunningham scandal go back to the Reagan adminsitration. Apparently the money laundring, drug running, and bribery network that started in the 80's took on a life of its own. While the Iraq war was still in the planning stages, they swarmed into DC and started bribing congressmen like Cunningham to get their cut of the Iraq pie in the form of sole source contracts.



4. I live in San Diego and bought this book at a street festival. Two of the authors (Marcus Stern and Dean Calbreath) were there and signed the book for me.
   
   The book describes the seemingly sudden fall of Congressman and war hero Randy Cunningham. I say "seemingly" because the authors show that his crimes were the logical extensions of a pattern of behavior based on the belief that he was above rules and laws that the rest of us follow.
   
   The book starts on Duke's best day: May 10, 1972. On that day he and Willie Driscoll shot down three enemy aircraft; this made them the first Navy Aces of the Vietnam War and they were awarded the Navy Cross. What few people knew about Duke was his demand that he be awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. When he made this demand to his commanding officer, Ron McKeown, told him: "You ain't going to get the Medal of Honor. Here's what's going to go down: First, both of you are going to go get a haircut. Then you're going to get your blues cleaned and pressed with gold braid and make sure you've got a good shine on your shoes. And tomorrow, at ten o'clock, a grateful nation is going to heap its praise on two of its lofty heros and give you the Navy Cross. And you're going to accept them and be gracious and charming. Anything less than that and I will personally rip your [breasts] off."
   
   From there it's off to the races. Duke's life was nothing more than a series of these events leading to Congress where he had no Ron McKeown to reign him in. As a congressman he played up the war hero image to the max, even falsely claiming to be the inspiration of Tom Cruise in Top Gun. He also found that there were people who would slip money to him in return for awarding defense contracts and this seemed to have no limit.
   
   Duke's world started to fall apart when it was revealed that he sold his home for an inflated price to Mitchell Wade, a defense contractor who earned incredible profits from Duke's earmarks. Pulling this string began an avalanche of stories that even Duke's best efforts couldn't stop. My favorite story was his call to an antique store in Maryland. Mr. Wade bought several antiques for Duke and in a pathetic attempt to cover this Duke called the manager to "remind" her that when Wade paid for it with a credit card, Duke reimbursed Wade with cash. He insisted he paid Wade $35,000 but the manager (Sandra Ellington) wouldn't buy it saying that she would remember if he gave Wade 350 $100 bills.
   
   I liked the book and recommend it, but with two caveats. First, the book has 4 authors and it shows. They all have different writing styles and it makes the book choppy; they would have been well served if they had hired one editor to smooth over this and make the book easier to read. Second one of the authors (I'm not sure which) had a habit of making assumptions with nothing to back it up. In describing Duke's lifestyle between marriages he talked about Duke's evenings at the officer's club on base. "Cunningham...was no stranger to the police during these years. But these were different times, way before Mothers Against Drunk Driving and legislative crackdowns on drinking, long before the term 'designated driver' existed. And not many cops, either on or off the base, were about to arrest a man they knew was the Navy's only ace. Far better to just make sure he got home safely without hurting himself or others." The quotation is fine but gives no indication that Duke drove drunk or was pulled over. This would have had much more credibility if he had a quotation from a local cop who had pulled him over.
   
   That said, it's a good read about a man who believed he was untouchable.



5. The Wrong Stuff is a good read on a number of levels.
   
   It challenges our overuse of the word "hero" and forces us to be more discerning and skeptical about those we so readily put on pedestals. Apart from those few minutes over North Vietnam, a bit of luck combined with flying skill, there was nothing heroic about Duke Cunningham. Character flaws were evident in his youth. What he did in Congress should come as no surprise. As Sartre says, the end is in the beginning.
   
   The Wrong Stuff illustrates the need for political reform in campaign finance, the legislative process of earmarks, ethics and oversight. These are dry subjects, but by putting a face -- albeit a sad and corrupt one --on the subject, the authors have penned a readable, well-understood page-turner. They have made a complex issue understandable.
   
   And it is a good how-to book on journalism. Marc Stern broke the story by using good, old-fashioned news instinct born of experience first gained poking around the docks of the gritty Los Angeles port of San Pedro, then later the back hallways and rooms of Washington. He followed those instincts by working the phones, asking probing questions, pounding the pavement and not taking no for an answer. If you want a lesson on how to win a Pulitzer, which Stern did, this is a good place to start. He followed the Yogi Berra axiom: "You can see a lot just by looking."

No comments about Richard Nixon: Speeches, Writings, Documents (The James Madison Library in American Politics).

5 comments about Lion in the White House: A Life of Theodore Roosevelt.

1. For the many people who admire Theodore Rossevelt for his belief that corporations have a civic responsiblity to American citizens, new books on this icon of progressivism are always welcome. It is important, however, to temper one's affection for TR with expectations of scholarship, and when one does so, Donald's book fails to satisfy. Compared to the Morris two-volume biography, Donald's book lacks sufficient detail to be classified as a legitimate biography; instead, it seems to be a simple encomium. Serious readers will not learn anything that they did not already know about TR, and they may be offended by the book's shallow treatment. This book might be suitable for a junior high student as an introduction to TR, but it has little merit for a more adult audience.



2. When one writes a book or an article, one must first decide the audience for that work. The serious student of Theodore Roosevelt will be disappointed with this book as it contains nothing new. It is merely a precis of TR's life, from beginning to end. While reading this book the question "Why?" entered my mind many times. Why was it written? Why were certain parts highlighted and others ignored?
   
   For example, when Roosevelt returned from Cuba after the Spanish-American War, he flirted with the idea of running for governor of New York. His wife did not relish the idea. She eventually changed her mind, but the reader is not told why: "Besides his trial with [Thomas C.]Platt as an obstacle to his progress [in gaining the nomination], there was Edith's reluctance to reenter public life. She soon became enthusiastic and even went to the state convention..." (107). Were bargains made with Edith? Why did she change her mind? If that fact is important enough to mention, a better explanation as to her turnaround should have been forthcoming. There was also a lack of credit for some quotes in the book. Mark Hanna, the Ohio senator who was against TR becoming vice-president, was mentioned in several places. Yet, his most famous quote, "Now that damned cowboy is in the White House!" (after McKinley's assassination) is merely credited to "...an anti-Roosevelt Republican" (130).
   
   In a book filled with excerpts from Roosevelt letters and speeches, some of his best speeches and quotes are left out. His 1915 speech to the NYC Knights of Columbus where he dismisses "hyphenated Americans," is not mentioned. For a book published in 2007, one could argue for inclusion of the entire text of that speech. Also, while discussing the assassination attempt on TR during the 1912 presidential campaign, his famous line, "It takes more than that to kill a Bull Moose," is omitted.
   
   Clearly this is an abbreviated history of a long, event-filled life. This work does not do that life justice. Considering the lifetime of work by the author, one has to wonder if she penned the book only to add to the list of her accomplishments. Moreover, the lack of a serious bibliography and the absence of notes calls into question the academic validity of this work. It would have been better had it not been written in the first place.
   
   It was awarded three stars because it would be fitting as an introduction to the twenty-sixth president. Its prose flows well and is easy to read. Since the curious reader will want to find out more about Roosevelt, it would be recommended to a middle school student as a way to become familiar with one of America's great icons. Those who are beyond that stage should look to other sources for an in-depth education about Theodore Roosevelt.



3. This is not my period so I cannot attest to any of the specific details. I was simply looking at background on Roosevelt as a writer of American History. Besides Winston Churchill I can think of no easier subject for a short biography and the book does capture many of Roosevelt's accomplishments. However, this book is stunningly badly written and edited. And this is not simply the gratuitous digs at today's Republicans as noted by other reviewers. I cannot figure out how it received so many endorsements from renowned History professors. I understand that a short book on such a rich subject may lead to gaps - but there are so many gaps, jumps, incomplete thoughts and non sequiturs that it makes reading the book a jarring experience. In addition, Donald has a quirky and idiosyncratic way with the language.
   Such criticisms clearly require supportive examples.
   In terms of key issues being broached but never explored, Donald describes Roosevelt's run for Governor as follows: "Besides the trial with Platt as an obstacle to his progress, there was Edith's reluctance to re-enter public life. She soon became enthusiastic and even went to the State convention, held in Saratoga, New York, on September 27." P107 The phrasing of the first sentence is decidedly odd. Then we find that Edith's reluctance miraculously disappears though previously it was an obstacle on a level with the opposition of apparently the most powerful political boss in the New York Republican Party.
   Other examples of Donald's odd phrasing include: "The new president did not throw caution to the winds, but boldly tacked in domestic and foreign afairs." P134
   Then there is repetition: On pages 131 and 155, where Dr. Donald uses exactly the same quotes about lynching.
   Then there is the sheer lack of clarity when Donald describes the complexities of New York politics and Roosevelt's need for support for his re-election as President:
   "He(Roosevelt) also watched as two rival Republicans, Boss Platt and Benjamin Barker Odell, a rising politician, fought for control of the Republican Party. Odell found that Platt had lied to him and would not be his ally.
   "During the struggle, Platt told Roosevelt that he would favor him continuing on as president, but Roosevelt did not put much stock in this because he thought Platt, who was not well, would be more likely to follow him than would Roosevelt." Page 141
   Clearly there is something wrong here. An editor would have helped clear it up!!
   Another disappointment was cursory examination of how and why Roosevelt ran again for President. But perhaps by then I was too jarred to follow Dr. Donald's line of reasoning.
   Fortunately for Dr. Donald, her book is saved by the brilliance of Roosevelt.



4. It would be pointless for me to criticize this book for being too short, because it was obviously intended to be a quick read that provided an overview of Teddy Roosevelt's life. And it did that. Yes I would have liked to hear more about Roosevelt's insatiable oldest daughter, among other topics, but for the most part, I got what I wanted out of the book.
   
   I had never read a TR book before, and I want to read McCullough's "Mornings on Horseback" at some point soon. I felt that to prepare for that book, which does not cover TR's entire life, I needed some background on the man. And "Lion in The White House" provided that.
   
   This is the kind of book that you can read in a week and get an understanding of what Roosevelt's goals were as a politician, and what drove him to be as progressive as he was. It did whet my appetite for a more detailed study of the man. But this time, I wasn't looking for a 700-page or multi-volume monstrosity, so I'm glad Donald's book was on the shelf. As long as your expectations are for a short overview of TR, you will be pleased with this book. If you're looking for great depth and detail, you should look elsewhere.



5. I recently finished "Lion in the White House", referring to President Theodore Roosevelt.
   While I have read many other books about this fascinating man, "Lion in the White House" is a compilation of other books and extensive research. It is an excellent and concise documentary of events and personalities of the time. A very easy read.

5 comments about The Confidante: Condoleezza Rice and the Creation of the Bush Legacy.

1. Kessler's thesis is two-fold: (1) Rice has spent her years as Secretary of State saddled with the impossible task of trying to undo the damage that she did in Bush's first term as a National Security Advisor who fell under the sway of the administration's neoconservative ideologues. (2) Despite keeping up the most frenetic travel schedule of any Secretary of State since Kissinger, Rice's performance has been a series of missed opportunities attributable to a lack of any coherent strategic vision. As a reporter "on the plane" with Rice, Kessler is able to give you a detailed and psychologically nuanced look at Rice and the other players, foreign and domestic. It is a finely observed rendition of a disaster in the making, made all the more poignant by the fact that Rice herself is portrayed as a brilliant, talented, strong, energetic, attractive, and even charismatic person who might have played a constructive role in the world had she attached herself to a more competent mentor. As a reporter, Kessler stops short of articulating what he thinks an appropriate foreign-policy agenda might have looked like and tends to judge Rice's performance in relation to the goals that the she and the Administration set for themselves. But the book's agnosticism is part of its attraction, as it gets you thinking about your own foreign-policy values and commitments. What would a good response to the Hezbollah-Israeli war have looked like? What role should democracy and human rights play in foreign policy--and does an excessive focus on those values make a country end up looking hypocritical as idealism comes into contact with reality and inevitably becomes compromised? When is refusing to negotiate directly with a dangerous outlaw state like North Korea a useful tool, and when does it become an impediment to achieving important goals, like nuclear nonproliferation? Kessler's book doesn't answer these questions, but raises them in such an intriguing way as to ensure that it will still be attracting readers long after Rice has left the public stage--whenever that may be.



2. Never much one for politics, I began reading this book only because my father was reading it and had vehemently recommended it to me. However, upon picking it up and reading just a few short pages, I was hooked. The book provides a riveting portrait of one of the most important women, no, one of the most important people in our country. Rice was once believed to have had a substantial chance of becoming the first female president, but lost that chance through foolish political choices. This book shows Rice's weaknesses and her strengths, and portrays her admirable if not greatly successful attempts to fix her mistakes. The insider point of view Kessler offers as a journalist who followed Rice closely provides a wonderful personal touch to the examination of her character, and, in some ways, despite her controversial choices, one cannot help but admire her core of steel and her keen intelligence and sarcastic wit.



3. "In the spirit of Yom Kippur, the United States will not hold Israel to any agreements obligating them to accept Dollars as payment for their foreign aid. We will translate our obligations into Euros or whatever currency that best fits Israel's needs. We need to place our Israeli obligations at the top of our national priority list. Israel should not suffer any inconvenience due to currency fluctuations" -Condoleezza Rice 09/21/2007
   
   Soon OPEC and others will demand equal consideration and there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth all across this once great country.



4. No one denies that Condi Rice is a talented and hard-working diplomat, but Kessler's excellent book chronicles a series of missed diplomatic opportunities during her tenure, inviting one to consider how effective Rice has been as Secretary of State during Bush's second term. Rice initially built a strong and brilliant team under deputy secretary Robert Zoellick, and some of the success stories Kessler describes took place while Zoellick was at the helm.
   
   While Rice had a public profile and was popular with the public during her time on the NSC, once she ascended to role of Secretary of State, she sought systematically to raise her public profile, and to do so largely through a series of media spalshes accompanied by high fashion statements. Rice focused heavily on image. Perhaps the most salient example of a woman in power who used fashion to great effect is Margaret Thatcher, who was a relentless implementer; Kessler demonstrates that once Rice launched initiatives, her execution and implementation were weak, and apparently style trumped substance. Rice does dress the part, carries it off well, and clearly enjoys being a leading fashionista. Dean Acheson also dressed extremely well, but this was probably secondary to his diplomatic skill, and in any case his sartorial statements were not on prominent media display during his trips abroad, although I imagine had he appeared for dinner in Saudi Arabia, as Rice did, wearing flowing white slik with gold pinstripes threaded through the fabric, that would have changed quickly. But if the most innovative fashion statement conservatives can muster is the adoption the solid-color necktie look pioneered by James Baker, then we should welcome Rice's attempts to raise the bar.
   
   While Rice is known to be extremely bright, she appears to compensate for a lack of strategic intellectual firepower with a highly developed sense of performance. Splendid performances can go a long way in diplomacy, it seems, but Rice's tenure has been marked by unlucky breaks and wrong-footed initiatives which Kessler does an outstanding job of covering, while simultaneously guiding us through some of the major foreign policy challenges of the last few years with skill and brevity. The book's title, however, suggests that a more detailed examination of the Rice-Bush relationship would be on offer, with insight into how she became so influential with Bush, if indeed she is exceptionally influential with the President. Here the book falls short, but is nonetheless an essential read for anyone seeking to understand Rice's leadership, or lack of it, during a few turbulent years. Interestingly, as she was provost of a highly complex university and managed a stable of world-class talent, she seems to have brought no managerial skill at all to the running of the Department of State, neglecting to tap the vast resources available there and demonstrating her tacit acceptance of the Bush style of a closed inner circle that doesn't look beyond its own resources or mental models. Rice brings to the table an outstanding set of personal and intellectual qualities, but if Kessler's book is accurate, she may not have the chops to take on a future leadership role in electoral politics. One can only wish her well in the remaining months of her term, but Kessler provides little comfort that major breakthroughs are to be expected, particularly in the mid-east, where Rice has declared her intent to bring peace and stability, and realize the President's stated goal of fostering a Palestinian state. Even now, her role in managing other issues, such as those presented by Iran, seems less than siginficant.



5. I thoroughly enjoyed this book. I'd say it's essential reading for anyone who follows current events on any level. The writing is both direct and engaging and the author provides background and context in each chapter without overcomplicating. I really felt like a Washington insider with access to fascinating accounts of behind-the-scenes negotiations. Kessler's treatment of Rice is even-handed; he highlights her dedication, drive, poise and intelligence but also holds her accountable for failed outcomes and missteps. Reading the New York Times is a whole new experience now - I have a much deeper understanding of the issues and people in the news. Highly recommended!

5 comments about Boss Tweed: The Rise and Fall of the Corrupt Pol Who Conceived the Soul of Modern New York.

1. William Tweed needed a book written about him. It is interesting to see how the city used to be run and how much more difficult it is to be corrupt today compared to then. Tweed changed america with his ways and I liked the fact the author points out in many ways he was the fall guy for many others.



2. Great book for those who love New York History. Or US history for that matter. From Sheriff of NYC to the White House! This book is an eye opener on how corrupt politics were and currently are.
   
   Question: Can this or does this still happen?



3. The story of Boss Tweed, one of the greatest political swindlers of all time, and how the New York Times and a cartoonist named Thomas Nast brought him down makes for a real page-turner of a book.
   
   This book is illustrated with many of Nast's cartoons and excepts from the Times (including the table showing the routing of money through various bank accounts--discovered through painstaking researxch and tracing of money and vouchers across many accounts and ledgers--which was the astounding smoking gun that finally did Tweed in) giving the reader a real feel for the story.
   
   Fascinating to see the man in all his complexity, he may have swindled millions from the New York coffers (at a time when you could live in comfortable affluence on around $5,000 a year) but he was also responsible for a great many public works, including the Brooklyn Bridge, and for helping the poor of his city.
   
   Those in power over his arrest and confinement don't acquit themselves with honours either making Tweed's tale even more morally complex, especially as none of his co-conspiritors were ever jailed. An interesting man living in interesting times.



4. Riveting, powerful biography of the life and times of Boss Tweed. Somehow this relentless recitation of the rise and fall of a politician both modernly generous and corrupt captures the spirit of the man and his contemporaries with humor and compassion. Couldn't put it down.



5. William M. Tweed didn't exactly invent voter fraud, patronage jobs, and grafting, but he made those shameful New York mainstays yield greater gains than ever before. In "Boss Tweed: The Rise and Fall of the Corrupt Pol Who Conceived the Soul of Modern New York", Kenneth Ackerman revisits the dark side of the Gilded Age, a time when robber barons and shady financiers like Jim Fisk and Jay Gould hatched plots that nearly demolished the U.S. economy, such as Black Friday 1869.
   
   `Boss' Tweed's own underhanded bill-padding nearly bankrupted the city of New York, but unlike Fisk or Gould, he served the public while stealing from it. Recognizing that the influx of Irish and other European immigrants represented a tidal wave of voters, Tweed championed the working class and the poor, and turned Tammany into a semi-official welfare organization. He succeeded in accomplishing home rule for the City of New York and backed the development of Central Park and other beautification projects. But this appealing veneer was a smokescreen for his abuse of public funds, vendettas against political rivals, and gratuitous awarding of expensive `no show' jobs to friends. One especially flagrant abuse was the construction of the `Tweed Courthouse', which was budgeted in 1858 at $250,000 and ended up costing $12 million, with the surplus being pocketed by Tweed and other agents of the Tammany machine. It took the combined effort of New York Times owner George Jones, iconic cartoonist Thomas Nast, and future governor Samuel Tilden to expose him and put him behind bars.
   
   Ackerman has handled Tweed's story well. He resists the temptation to portray his subject as "Santa Claus with a diamond pin" as one contemporary dubbed the cagey politician, but doesn't dismiss him as a total villain either. "Boss Tweed" is a balanced look at an era when New York's political arena was a circus, and the corpulent Tweed was its ringmaster.

5 comments about Nonviolent Soldier of Islam: Badshah Khan: A Man to Match His Mountains.

1. This is a sweeping portrait of Badshah Khan, a courageous Muslim figure. I felt inspired as I read this touching work, though I wanted more.
   I wish that Khan's autobiography, My Life and Struggles would be more readily available. Also, a more detailed biography would be helpful. This book is wonderful as an overview but one who wants to dive deeper should investigate further.
   This book is an excellent introduction to Badshah Khan. It shows how one can use the bismillah (in the name of God the infinitly compassionate and merciful) as a means to internalize compassion and mercy in ourselves. This is the core of Islam and of the utmost importance today.



2. All the Amazon reviews for this book below perceive Abdul Ghaffar Khan superficially, only from the angle of the non-violent doctrine and rural Islamic philosophy he preached, rather than any practical political accomplishments and impact on history and his society that may have been made by him - or the lack thereof. High ideals are fine, except that they are a little ephemeral as far as practical reality is concerned - unless they help achieve something effective and concrete. And sadly this is what this otherwise good and simple man failed to do. Living in the same society as he did, I will focus on him from the angle of Pashtun social realities and issues, unlike the other foreign reviewers who are just content with the usual wishy-washy praise of his non-violent Islamic ideals. It must also be kept in mind that Eknath Easwaran is a pacifist Hindu thinker, and so has written this book mainly from the viewpoint of highlighting his pacifist aspect above all else. Which is true, since Ghaffar Khan's pacifism was largely Hindu inspired, but for Pashtuns he is basically a politician and cultural figure, and pacifism is just a facet of his character, albeit a key one. 20th century Pashtun political history is an obscure issue but still crucially important, inspite of its failed and forlorn character. I consider this book as perhaps the most useful introduction so far for the foreign reader, of the man at the centre of it - and I rate it at five stars because there are only a handful of books worth the name on the international level that deal with his doings, and this one is about the story of the man himself. Ghaffar Khan aka Badshah (or Bacha) Khan was a towering figure mainly because of his personal qualities of head and heart - infinite patience, steely determination and simplicity. He himself belonged to the Hunnish origin "Khan" Pashtun landowning class. He is acclaimed by most Pathans (Pashtuns) as being the father of their "nationalism". He founded a simple rural political-cum-cultural-cum-religious movement in the countryside to "dignify" Pashtuns and their culture and language and free them from first British and then Pakistani rule. They were known as "Red Shirts", the name being derived from their uniformed cadres and were first affiliated politically with the All India National Congress of M.K.Gandhi and later merged into and then broke with many other Pakistani groupings (when they couldn't dominate them). They were finally turned into a formal political structure of their own by 1986, which came to be dominated by his late son and daughter-in-law, and is now very much their family concern, a "lucrative" political party in the hands of his grandchildren and their in-laws and other cronies. They now use his image and "philosophy" to keep their fortunes alive. He was the key regional ally of Gandhi in his non-violent independence struggle for India. His position on Pakistan was varied and inconsistent. He had earlier tried vainly to oppose the dissolution of the Turkish Caliphate in the 1920s. All these activities earned him long spells in jail. But his anti-British stance didn't stop him from getting his sons elitist British educations and properties in Britain, as well as good political positions and alliances in later Pakistani governments.
   
   Let us now review Badshah Khan's accomplishments - and those of his successors - for those are what really count in the historical long run. What is there visible to us that he has achieved for his people through his struggle and philosophy? Nothing but a vague demand for some sort of a "Pashtun nation" of sorts that even its proponents very conveniently refrain from defining exactly - and some sort of "unity" for the Pashtun ethnicity divided between Afghanistan and Pakistan. That was never really elaborated upon either. First of all, he desired Pashtun political union with India, after it became independent; later, he toned that down and would give the impression of wanting total Pashtun independence; otherwise, he would only demand Pashtun provincial autonomy within Pakistan; and many a time, he swore fealty to Pakistan's integrity! He is also known for his advocacy of Afghanistan as the "real" Pashtun state, and that is where he now lies buried. In the end, he merely wanted to change Pakistan's Pashtun province's name from NWFP to the more realistic "Pakhtunkhwa". That was the nature of his ever efflusive politics. No doubt he talked about some vague Pashtun independence and national self-determination, but avoided really important issues like improving and reforming their cultural quality. Otherwise he was just a popular rustic social figure, wearing the rude homespun cotton garb of a village simpleton who gave his society nothing of particular merit other than going around from village to village drinking green tea with the men and extolling the virtues of rustic Pashtun goodness and their good old rough Red Shirt camaraderie. Now let us see what effect this influence of his has had. When we look at the Pashtun society in 2006 and compare it to what it was in 1930 - at the height of his movement - we see no real changes in it at all: their dirty mud caked village roads and stinking ramshackle bazaars are the same, their rich, exploitative landowning upper and noveau riche classes, who use their educational skills and government jobs to enable their legendary corruption, plunder and pelf (and who are the local comprador dependents of US global imperialism) - are the same; the great masses of the Pathan populace are boorish vicious tribesmen and illiterate peasant artisans, cultivators and daily wagers, little better than animals in any respect, going around swathed in their rough stone age felt sheets and caps and turbans, working with much the same equipment in their fields as they did 3000 years ago in the days of their Gandhara predecessors, and living likewise: the open drains by the roadside and walls serve as the men's public urinals. The only notable differences between Gandhara and now are that there are some dilapidated roads, vehicles, electricity and various other trappings of modernity that were introduced here by British influence; and lately Pashtuns have been inundated with cell phones, in an unnatural and despicable mix that I call "neolithic globalism" - and Badshah Khan or his marvellous legacy are certainly not responsible for that. (It is because of the folly and misdemeanours of the modern world that we see the likes of backward Bedouin sheikhs sporting chunky Rolex watches and Rolls Royces, and medieval Pathan ruffians of all hues - and other such "natives" - having undeserved free access to the latest electronic gadgets and vehicles, and taking them for granted. Sad paradoxes indeed). The modern state institutions that exist in the Pashtun areas under Pakistani rule are those bequeathed by former British rule, and they exist merely as a modern verneer beneath which things go on here as they have been doing for thousands of years. With these institutions existing just as rubberstamps, the real decision making power lies with informally constituted tribal councils made up of "elders" and "influentials" and "notables" at the local level, extending all the way up. Bribery, patronage and coercion and are considered normal business procedure. Nobody pays taxes, and smuggling constitutes trade. Gun running, narcotics and counterfeiting are traditional lucrative sources of income here. Merit doesn't exist. People tend to settle all disputes personally owing to police and government ineffectiveness in such a society, and given the extreme and proud Pashtun temperament - often end up using guns whatever the nature of the problem. Grasping, greed, jealousy and lawless behaviour are customarily extolled as being "manly". "Insults" have to be avenged - often by death - and so many things are regarded as insults, that normal people elsewhere can't even imagine: for instance, asking someone to remove his car parked wrongly behind yours can be regarded by him as insulting, and among most Pashtuns in general such incidents are the norm because of their lack of adherence to and cynical disregard for proper procedure and manners is so universal as they haughtily dismiss all such procedural "fuss" as being beneath strong, clever men. Even someone overtaking another person's car is often regarded by the one being overtaken as an insult... Pashtun fracticide, treachery and tribal disunity are unparalleled and legendary. Extreme religious fervour has always been the norm in this claustrophobic society. Its conventions are extolled and enforced ruthlessly. Marriages are all arranged. Women are still bought and sold in marriage deals. Polygamy is considered normal and even a prestigious aspiration. Pashtun society is infamous for its sub-human and extreme cultural attitudes regarding its women and their rights. Afghan tribesmen use the Pashto word "kaddah" for wife which literally means "baggage" or "belongings". Women are made the cornerstone of a twisted all-pervasive male "code" of feudal-tribal "honour" that rules day to day Pashtun living, involving senseless butchery, blood feuds, duels and land and money grabbing. What is more, the women willingly and "proudly" accept their place in all this too, may I inform those shocked western and other liberals who read this! (After all, it is they who make sure to pass on these noxious traditions to their sons).
   
   In short, Pashtun society is a lowlife jungle society in every sense of the word, at a time in history when all should know and do better. It is stuck in a time warp. All this is what Badshah Khan (and now his brood) endorsed and glorified as the "Pashtun nation's precious cultural identity", a situation to protect and be proud of. His non-violence was mostly a tactic for political activities against the British, and later the Pakistani administrations. And not all of this was non-violent either, if one cares to read about the Qissa Khwani Bazaar massacre of 1930 and the Baburra massacre of 1948, where he got hundreds of his uniformed cadres slaughtered as they were preparing for confrontations. No doubt the reader will come across gushing, over-reverent Pashtun views regarding him. (An example is a Pashtun's Amazon review for the 1998 edition of this book, on a separate webpage). But these are worthless tinsel, the bombastic rigmarole typical of the blustery and exaggerated Pathan mentality and "public morality" that they show to others, especially foreigners. You can ask me instead about what Badshah Khan & Co. accomplished. I belong to the same provincial district as the Badshah Khan family, called Charsadda, and my family is even distantly related to theirs.
   
   So honestly, what did this man achieve in his society that merits such a fuss? His successors are nowadays typical Pakistani politicians, who run an opportunist business venture of a party devoted to robbery and thuggery. That is what characterises Pakistani politics nowadays. Not only have things not changed in Pashtun society, but they have in fact taken a turn for the worse since America revived and equipped Islamic fundamentalism here to counter the USSR in the 1980s. Whatever little cosmetic good 100 years of British rule did the Pashtuns in Pakistan has now been effectively wiped out by that. Badshah Khan could not give his people what their British "oppressors" had given them, and he merely created a cheap circus troupe, a cheerleading carnival performing in red uniforms for the benefit of bored peasants and later, corrupt politicians. Although he himself definitely had a strong character, with a deep sense of genuine personal committment and he suffered greatly for his rustic nationalist causes, that alone amounts to nothing on the real level as he had nothing significant to offer and improve his society with other than calling for some ephemeral nationalist unity based on a decidedly decrepit culture. If Pathans honestly realise that, then there might be some hope for change in their dark lot. If not, then they should happily keep Badshah Khan as their icon along with their pathological, medieval state of being for as long as they exist. It is indeed sad to see how the exaltation of the lowest common denominator factor pervades all affairs of life globally nowadays - whether that means praising rarified ideals, or eulogising inferior and bad culture among other things. After 9/11, these negative potentials become very clear indeed.



3. I request customers and other visitors to read the article by Arif H. Akhunzada titled "Bacha Khan legacy is Questionable" with caution because in Pakistan objective interpretation and description of history is mostly marred by the official stand on history enshrined in the so-called "Pakistan Ideology".
   
   Pakistan Ideology i.e. the Idea that sparked the struggle for Pakistan is a highly communal, theocratic, and Pan-Islamist view of history that considers the people of the Subcontinent to be divided into two religious communities-Hindus and Muslims-with entirely different ways of life and very little in common to live in a single state or society. According to this ideology, the Idea of Pakistan was born when the first Arab Muslim invader i.e. Mohammad Bin Qasim invaded India (Sindh) and converted some of its inhabitants to Islam.
   
   This divisive and jingoistic philosophy very well serves the interests of the military bureaucracy that has been ruling Pakistan since inception and the allied religious and fudal classess.
   
   As Abdul Ghaffar Khan aka Bacha Khan espoused a non-communal approach to life in which the highest spiritual act and worship was the "service of humanity" irrespective of religious affiliation and practically upheld what he thought as the true purpose of life ( evident from his personal life and joint struggle with Hindus, Sikhs, etc. for freedom), he, therefore, is an anathema to Pakistani national elite. This elite, through a systematic campaign, has tried its best to malign Abdul Ghaffar Khan, mispresent him to the world and his own people i.e. Pashtuns, make him controversial, and permanently erase him from history and the memories of the successive generation of Pashtuns. These elite want Pashtun society to evolve the Taleban way.
   
   There is also another dimension to all this. The political, bureaucratic, economic, and intellectual elite of Pakistan predominently comes from two communities; Punjabis and Muhajirs. The other three communities of Pakistan i.e. Sindhis, Baluchis, and Pashtuns have only peripheral rule in Pakistan. The Punjabi-Muhajir elite wants to build a Pakistani nation based on Islam and Hindustani Muslim Culture. Therefore, any thing that gives these marginalized communities (i.e. Baluchis, Pashtuns, and Sindhis) a sense of identity, pride, self-esteem, and confidence is virtually unbearable for the Punjabi-Muhajir elite that dominate Pakistan.
   
   I will request the world not to forget Bacha Khan. The values and the view of life he upheld are eternal and humanistic. His legacy belongs to the entire humanity rather than a specific community. As a Pashtun, I believe that my people i.e. Pashtuns can achieve spiritual and material success only if they follow Bacha Khan's philosophy of non-voilence and peaceful struggle for personal and collective development. Unfortunately, initially British and later Pakistani state ruthlessly suppressed his movement and philosophy. The politics of the Cold War, in which radical Islam and Jehad were used as counter to communism, also have its share in weakening Bacha Khan's "Khudayi Khidmatgar Movement".
   
   I will further request that readers should read anthropological studies on Pashtuns than relying on superficial views about them here and there.



4. I love everything Eknath Easwaran writes and this book exceeded my expectations. The stories and information are priceless - buy this book if you want to know about the life of Badshah Khan.



5. I am so impressed with Badshah Khan to the point of being overwhelmed with admiration. One reason is his breadth of vision and his tolerance. At one point Gandhi asked Khan if his English sister-in-law had become a Muslim, and Abdul Ghaffar Khan replied that he did not know: "Why should not a husband and wife adhere each to their respective faiths?" (p.145) I long for this kind of tolerance in the world!
   
   The book is an amazing story of success and failure. Khan and Gandhi succeeded nonviolently in bringing independence to India. The failure lies in the facts that: 1) Neither one of them wanted to see the partitioning in to two nations, 2) their dreams of a united Hindu-Islamic nation turned into a nightmare, 3) they both envisioned a nonviolent nation and that has turned out to be a far-fetched notion. Yet, Khan & Gandhi proved that non-violence can work, as proven again by Martin Luther King, Jr., and Nelson Mandela.
   
   As the author notes, probably no other leader suffered so much for the cause of peace and nonviolence as did Khan. No, not even Gandhi or even Mandela. I think we have in this book the profile of THE most amazing man in world history!! And the fact is that he is probably known by far less than one percent of the world's population.