5 comments about Home and Exile.

1. Excellent! Achebe has done it again. This is a must read!



2. The physical brevity of Achebe's "autobiography" truly belies the intrisic wisdom he so effortlessly spews upon his listeners. Mr. Achebe sets out to deconstruct the manifold, post-colonial ills (endemic to the dispossessed of African diasopora) with the assistance of historical literature, creation fables, and his own personal memories. Indeed, a thought provoking manifesto for any fan of the great Achebe; one which will aid the reader to pursue further literature with a new sense of enlightenment.



3. Achebe's work was informative, thought provocing, and at times amusing. His work is another example of how important it is for all people to tell their own story/history, especially people who were once disposessed. This little book inspired me to write a few ideas to prevent my experiences from being misinterpreted.



4. Long live the proud son of Africa and our respected statesman.
   Achebe the honest and truthful dispenser of both sides of the story. Colonial griots (to borrow Achebe's words) such as Elspeth Huxley and other apologists have for too long been left alone to justify the dispossession of precious lands and cultures. Until the proud son of Africa made them eat their own words and exposed them for what they are. Dishonest griots deftly laying the groundwork for self-enrichment at the expense of peace loving and decent Human Beings.
   Chinua Achebe as exemplified by his few but precious books writes not to make money but only when he must say something useful. Unlike modern day "authors" who are more about money than substance. I have no doubt Achebe can write profound and moving accounts of African and world issues at the rate of one book a day but he chose only to spend his time teaching.
   It is obvious why the Nobel Prize went to Wole Soyinka instead of Chinua Achebe. Achebe refuses to write for a "foreign" audience and does not take his marching orders from anybody. He is his own man. Africans and honest people all over the world have in their own ways given Achebe the best prize in the world.
   Continuous interest in his worthwhile classics such as Things Fall Apart,The Man of the People,No longer at Ease,Anthills of the Savannah, Morning Yet on Creation Day,Hopes and Impediments and many others.

   Home and Exile may be a small book but has enough three pence (from Achebes "somebody knock me down and have three pence!") to liberate nations and individuals from the grip and stench of colonial and racist apologia masquerading as literature.

   Long live Achebe, proud son of Africa and citizen of the world.
   To know Achebe (by reading his books) is to know how to be an unassuming and proud Human Being who quitely and calmly states his truth for the benefit of us all.




5. Since the book is already well-summarized above, I'll just give my own reaction.
   
   I've read a number of Achebe's novels and one essay (the excellent critique of Heart of Darkness) and really enjoyed the "backstage" feeling of hearing the author's first person voice - an insightful and kindly voice. For me, the effect of Achebe's strong positions is heightened by the dignified presentation, and of course by the poignant and funny stories from his own life that he uses to illustrate those positions. As compared to one of my other favorite authors, James Baldwin, Achebe's writing includes less calls to action, and more explanation. For instance, even in his sharp critique of Vidiadhar Naipaul's novels, Achebe's first priority is to shine light on the processes that led to Naipul's failures of vision. I think people who have read Achebe's fiction or essays and liked it, or generally care about literature from an indigenous or "Third World" perspective will really enjoy this short text. Definitely worth the cost, and may be available from the library.

5 comments about Revolution of Hope: The Life, Faith, and Dreams of a Mexican President.

1. I will strongly recomend this book for people that are interested in The Americas' integration of cultures.



2. Ordered this on Dec. 2 and was told that it shipped Dec. 11. It is now Dec. 23 and I have not received book or any info. as to what is going on since Dec.11. Not happy with this service at this time.



3. In order to read this book you should be objective not subjective. Have an open mind and try to listen to the man. I believe too many people have read(or lied and claimed to have read the book to push their own agenda)this book letting their own prejudices cloud their judgement of the book. It is a memoir of sorts, an autobigraphy if you will. It is not literature. Many authors who are first and foremeost not authors write with the help of a professional, for example, Lance Armstrong has enlisted the help of columnist Sally Jenkins in his books It's Not About the Bike: My Journey Back to Life and Every Second Counts. I mention this because some reviewers here have dismissed this book saying he did not write it. So what is this book about? It is one man's account of his rise to the Presidency in 2000 breaking the one-party rule of the PRI that had a stranglehold on the Mexican people for the previous seventy-one years. This in itself was a monumental accomplishment. But this book is much more than than just his personal rise to power. It is about his struggles, his parents and grandparents struggle to achieve a better life, an ongoing theme that seems to irritate many people when it comes to the immigration issue. BTW, his paternal grandfather emigrated in 1898 to Mexico from the United States (Ohio), seeking a better life because his business failed and his father was an American citizen! So you see, immigration goes north and south, with results that can often be amazing. Vicente Fox chronicles his youth and what it was like to live on the family ranch in San Cristobal in Guanajuato. He discusses his parents decision to send him to school in the U.S. and the effect that had on his youth. Like many Americans or Mexicans of Mexican descent,this traversing of the border can create conflicts on both sides of the border. As children we go where our parents tell us to go because they know best. In the end this was good for Vicente Fox as it allowed him to compare and take the desireable qualities of American life and later apply them to his leadership, first as the youngest CEO of Coca-Cola, on to Governor of Guanajuato and ultimately as President of Mexico. I found President Fox to be a man of integrity, commitment, strength, leadership and vision. People can agree to disagree, as Fox does with Bush but a bond is there between people who are seperated by a border. There is a mutual respect that these two leaders have for each other as the book indicates. His life is fascinating but his desire to create a better world is even more admirable. Politics aside you cannot be other than impressed with his commitment to the betterment of mankind. I was very impressed with his denuciation of the dictator, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and his good reltionship with President Bush. These two leaders were making progress with regards to immigration until 9/11. The summit meetings in San Cristobal prior to 9/11 were historic in many reagrds, not the least of which was the fact that this was President Bush's first foreign destination. If you do not let your personal views on immigration cloud your judgement I think you can find this autobiography quite compelling. His narration his part history lesson, part vision of the future. He incorporates the lessons of today, compares them with the past and creates a unique observation to the future. He cites examples from Europe on how through a common market the economies of the poorer European nations have leveled the playing field with the richer European nations. The Euro is stronger than the U.S. dollar. He believes that much can be done within our own hemisphere to create prosperity for all nations in the Americas. Canada,the United States and Mexico can be the torchbearers of this vison of economic unity and vitality. Vicente Fox's vison is honest, whether or not it will occurr in our lifetime is another question but naysayers should not write him off so quickly. He achieved the unthinkable, he defeated the PRI'S reign, so don't sell the man short, besides he's very tall, 6'5". Seriously though, Fox doesn't sugar coat his countries problems and presents Mexcio with all it's warts. He discusses the role of narcotrafficers and the devasting effect they have had on both sides of the border. Mexico's attempt to clamp down on these gangs and the cooperation between nations to prosecute. The key word here is cooperate, that is what neighbors must do. Hostility between neighbors, whether it is with regards to immigration or any other "hot" button issue will not solve anything, cooperation will. President Fox continues to fight the good fight with the Centro Fox and the expansion of Vamos Mexico Foundation by getting the help of the Carters, the Clintons and others to combat AIDS in Africa, preventing election fraud, raising funds for disaster relief and working for global democracy, peace and social justice. This is a good book about a good man. Recommended for those who envision a better tommorrow and like current events and autobiographies.



4. When learning a language such as Spanish, it is important to learn the culture of native speakers. Unfortunately, most books on culture are either vague (e.g. Mexicans are macho.) or trivial (such as focusing on a timeline of rulers without making the dates meaningful). Revolution of Hope adds context to Mexican history. When an event happens, the suffering or the improvement of lifestyle of the Foxes is chronicled. Likewise, aspects of culture are illustrated with real-life stories.
   
   I do not agree with all of Vicente Fox's politics, but this book is well-written and a great help in my quest to learn Spanish.



5. So what if he could not deliver on all of his campaign promises? He did not have the majority in Congress to do so.
   
   He did start making changes which his successor felipe calderon must continue in order for Mexico to be succesfull in the modern world. Free trade, privatization of certain elements of the oil industry, increased government accountability, drug trade, etc.
   
   A lot of people hate him and hated President Zedillo, but without them both, Mexico ould still be stuck in its old political and presidentialist system that brought us nothing but economic crises after economic crises.
   
   A good read, very entertaining outlook at the personal life, back ground, upbringing, career in the private and public sector.

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

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



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



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



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



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

5 comments about Crow Dog: Four Generations of Sioux Medicine Men.

1. Crow Dog is one of the best Native American books I've ever read. It is culturally rich and speaks clearly on the injustices done to the Native Americans. It talks not only about the injustices of the past but also the future, like the siege of Wounded Knee. Also this is one of the richest stories which covers the legacy of the Crow Dogs.
   
   One of the reasons this book is so affluent is its personal feel. The author, Leonard Crow Dog, can't write and so he spoke the entire book to an interpreter. This gives the entire book a slow but fluent feel which shadows the way many Native Americans talk, and so the book feels, sometimes, like a story. It makes you feel you are there in every event, and you are connected with the book in an uncanny way.
   
   This book goes in-depth in the religious aspects of Native Americans. The Crow Dog family has always been in the root of Lakota medicine men, and they are responsible for the continued practice of, and the creation of some, Native American rituals. Leonard Crow Dog, the author, was the first to bring back the banded Ghost Dance since the death of his Great-Grand Father. It happened at one of the most important sites in Native American history, Wounded Knee. However, this wouldn't be the last time Leonard Crow Dog would become history at Wounded Knee.
   
   The siege of Wounded Knee, which lasted seventy-two days, is one of the most intense events of the book. In that short time a band of Native Americans, from a rainbow of tribes, raised an independent nation, defended that nation, and fell to an enemy whom had, or maybe more has, no sense of a kept word. The siege of Wounded Knee wasn't actually a siege because the land was a part of a treaty which said it'd be Native American land, but naturally the white man didn't keep their word. It's been more than a decade since the last battle at Wounded Knee and it has been erased from most people's memory.
   
   Crow Dog seems to be more than just a book about the legacy of the Crow Dog family. It seems to be a story about the prevailing struggle that Native American have every day to keep hold of their identity, and to keep hold of their sanity as they are encircled everyday by people how've stolen their home. The important part of the book is not the continued signing and break of agreements with Native Americans, but their spirit to stand resolved and stand with the divine father.



2. Interesting contemporary information (i.e. 1950s on). Tells of Indian's on-going plight in poverty, alcoholism, disease and lack of employment and the feelings this engenders in them. Valuable history of past Holy Men (and women) and their values.
   Since I am very interested in Indian studies, both past and present, I enjoyed this book.



3. THE FIRST PART OF THE BOOK IS INCREDIBLE ENLIGHTNING GUIDANCE THROUGH THE RITES, CULTURE AND LIFE OF THE AUTHOR. THEN WE MOVE INTO RECENT HISTORY WITH THE CREATION OF AIM ITS STRUGGLE AND AMAZING VICTORIES; TO MOVE ON WITH PROSECUTION PERSECUTION TORTURE OF THE PEOPLE WHO FOUGHT AND DIE FOR THEIR CULTURE AND ARE STILL FIGHTING TODAY FOR THE RIGHT TO BE WHO THEY ARE. (RESPECT!)
   WHEN CROW DOG DESCRIBE HIS JAIL TIME IT IS SO REALISTIC AND SENSITIVE YOU FEEL YOU ARE THERE INSIDE HIM AND THE WALLS, BUT WHEN YOU SHARE HIS FINAL FEAR: YOU ARE BREATHLESS ABOUT TO CHOKE!
   ALL THIS HAD TO END UP IN A SUN DANCE.
   A WONDERFUL BOOK WHICH SHOULD BE INTO EVERY LIBRARY, BOOKSTORES AND MOST DEFINETELY ON YOUR BOOK SHELVES.
   1 HEART!
   C



4. The story of the Sioux leader Crow Dog. It also talks about his family and previous generations, as well as children. He has a co-writer to get all this down. This isn't too bad, and a reasonably interesting account if you are interested in that sort of history and such books as Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee.



5. This is a great book that could be out of print soon. Get a copy while you can, you won't be disappointed.

No comments about Sarah Palin - The Alaskan Barracuda.

1 comments about Mandela: An Illustrated Autobiography.

1. 
   This book recounts the life of Nelson Mandela beginning in childhood up to the present age. It is written by Mandela himself - it's honest, straightforward style seems to be an honest attempt by Mandela to portray himself objectively, avoiding the tendency to be self-serving.
   
   A fascinating book. It begins with Mandela in his young childhood living in a pre-industrial society of native Africans in the countryside of South Africa where white settlers have dominated industrialized society. It is an engaging society, - perhaps more advanced than our own - as one must reconsider what it means to live in harmony and in cooperation; A true democracy, based on the ideals that all are equal.
   
   Mandela undergoes culture shock when he runs away from his traditional homeland to seek his fortunes in the big city of Johannesberg. Here is encounters white society up close, and is mortified at the inequity that exists between the native blacks, and the immigrant whites that make every attempt to dominate their country and exploit its indigenous peoples.
   
   Mandela encounters a small group of educated, free-thinking educated blacks, and joins the African National Congress. Here he encounters several other oppressed peoples: Indians, Communists, and liberal whites. He slowly makes his life's objective to be a freedom fighter. A fighter for civil rights for all people. A life of struggle, where one must be willing to pay the ultimate price. And he nearly does.
   
   He becomes the inspiration for downtrodden average black citizen, nearly enslaved within their own country. He willingly faces grave danger, is tried several times for his political ideals, denounced as "treason" and is eventually sent to prison "for life."
   
   Mandela's life in prison is austere. But he and his colleagues never yield in their commitment to freedom for all South Africans. His wife, Winnie is an example of true dedication - equally a woman of integrity and worthy of the highest praise. She undergoes severe hardships being married to a "freedom fighter."
   
   Mandela avoids the tendency to give up in the face of severe conditions, showing true mettle as he remains dedicated to the rights for all people to live free in racist South Africa. 27 years later having risked his life and surviving harsh prison conditions, he emerges a national hero.
   
   A must read for anyone - Mandela is history in the making.

5 comments about Profiles In Courage For Our Time.

1. On page 3 C Kennedy defines "courage" as "sacrificing their own future, and that of their families, to do what they believed was right for our country". I think it is hypocrisy to apply it to Edmund G Ross (supported a President against Congress), or Gerald R Ford (covered up a President who was virtually impeached). Both can be said to have obstructed justice and the lawful popular will. So why was James Florio added to this list? Neither Florio or Ford have suffered from their actions; losing an election isn't a sacrifice, its part of political life.

   When Florio ran for Governor in 1989 he promised not to raise the sales and income taxes. He not only reneged, he extended the sales tax to items previously exempt! The authors take a perverse pride in these actions, but cannot (or dare not) explain why. It is regressive and reactionary to have a sales tax so much higher than the income tax.

   Florio was a Congressman from Camden NJ, a once important industrial city that is now a stripped junker of a city. Page 72 shows another dishonest statement about NJ. The Colony of NJ was controlled by the large landowners, then the railroads and other powerful corporations. What Governor has NOT been a servant of the Corporations since the Civil War?

   A Quindlen uses an anecdote (p.72) to justify Florio's law, but never mentions the special interest forces and the money used to pay for this law. She does admit the most objectionable feature was the confiscation of legally owned guns. The Federal Constitution forbids ex post facto laws! The rejection by the courts underlines the lack of democracy in NJ. Judges were never popularly elected since NJ was a Colony. The loss of the Senate and Assembly in 1991 seemed mainly due to the sales and income tax increases. This was the correct political response.

   A Quindlen does an incompetent job in writing of the history of gun prohibition (p.76-77). Those "opinion polls" merely reflect the wishes of those who paid for the desired results. The referendums held in Massachusetts and California overwhelmingly rejected gun prohibition. Since 1987 thirty-three states passed "right to carry" laws. Page 78 lists the latest tactic of gun prohibitionists: present it as a police safety measure. They use politically appointed police chiefs; some do it for the money.

   On page 80 Quindlen finally tells of the Florio taxes His "skill at taking his case to the people" (p.81) failed miserably once Florio had to talk about a subject most people were familiar with. his defeat by a rich dilettante shows the efficiency of political machines in running a scandal-free candidate (just like Woodrow Wilson). The loss of "grass roots" by "Hands Across NJ" shows what happens to a politically naive movement that lacks a competent cadre of leaders.

   Florio's "sour grapes" comments on "the influence of money in the process" recalls similar whines from Bill Bradley, whose Senate law started to tax Social Security. The failure of Whitman to act on campaign promises is not new (p.86); she was the latest puppet of the Republican machine.




2. This book is a compilation of short biographies of the winners of the Profile in Courage Award. It is a group effort, being the work of numerous historians and writers. I found these stories inspiring because many of them illuminate political leaders who took actions they knew would be detrimental to their careers. Yes, most of the award winners have been on the liberal side, but personally I find that a healthy antidote to the sort of "leadership" the mainstream media prefers to applaud these days. And don't forget good old Gerald Ford, whose biography (by Bob Woodward, no less) eloquently makes his case for his pardoning of Richard Nixon. Many readers will disagree with some of the choices for the awards and with some of the conclusions of the authors of these biographies. Nevertheless Profiles in Courage For Our Time is an inspiring effort meant to remind us of the highest qualities we should expect from our leadership.



3. The "profiles" in this update to JFK's classic, are varied in both their subjects and their presentation. These accounts are not uniform in quality. Most stirring are those with a personal flavor such as Bob Woodward's profile of Gerald Ford, wherein we see a hidden profile of Woodward as well. However, others seem either too detached or tediously narrative, such as Michael Daly's "The Irish Peacemakers" which outlines the alphabet soup of the political/religious strife in Ireland, but does little to connect the overall themes of courage to anything outside the situation.
   
   It is a good read, but not all the selections hold interest. I'd recommend particular excerpts for good classroom reading. I also commend the acknowledgement of politicians, leaders, and activists on both local and global levels.



4. During our time one lonley man steped up to the plate to take on polotics and america as we know it. If you are intrested into polotics or Amercian history this book has it all and maby if you read it you might become class President just like I did.



5. President John F. Kennedy:
   
   John F. Kennedy said "US will never start a war. We do not want war. We do not expect war. This generation of Americans has had enough - more than enough - of hate and expression".
   
   JFK profile of courage was a suggestion of massive reform: 1. Major tax reform starting with the cutting of taxes which benefited low-income households 2. The revision of the capital gains laws would free capital investment and encourage economic growth. 3. The removal of tax privileges that favored mineral companies, such as, oil 4. A migration from a floating currency back too the gold standard, as means to control inflation and deflation and the printing of debt free money. 5. The dismantling of the Federal Reserve 6. Tighter budgets policies to be implemented that significantly reducing military spending. 7. Accepting the conclusion, South Vietnam war was their war and affective immediately the withdrawal of US troops from the region.
   
   JFK wrote in his book, "In whatever arena of life one may meet the challenge of courage, whatever may be the sacrifices he faces if he follows his conscience-the loss of his friends, his fortune, his contentment, even the esteem of his fellow men-each man must decide for himself the course he will follow. The stories of past courage can define that ingredient-they can teach, they can offer hope, they can provide inspiration. But they cannot supply courage itself. For this, each man must look into his soul."
   
   Carl Elliott:
   
   Congressman Carl Elliott from Alabama fought for equal opportunity in education and was redistricted out of his congressional seat in retaliation for his principled stand.
   
   "Elliott fought for equal opportunity in education and was redistricted out of his congressional seat in retaliation for his principled stand.
   
   What Elliot cared about was "seeing that folks got what they deserved, good or bad; seeing that the less fortunate weren't denied at least the same opportunity to get an education, earn a decent income, have a home and raise a family as people who happened to be in better circumstances."
   
   Elliott believe the Congressman should not just look out for himself and profit from monies from special interest groups, but that the Congressman should "mind the store" and hear what the American people's problem were.
   
   In 1958 Elliot and Senator Lister Hill were key champions of the $900 million National Defense Education Act, known as the Hill-Elliott Act. 40,000 grant-in-aid college scholarships were proposed with the aim of producing scientist, engineers, mathematicians, and linguist.
   
   Elliot realized that if he took the wrong stand on race, he would be out of office. "White Southerners in Congress were under ferocious pressure to take their stand with the segregationist of Dixie." Elliot did not side with the segregationist telling one reporter, "Anybody who had a grain of sense knew that blacks had to be given their rights. The question was, how were we going to do it. Then the question locally was, what can we do and still live with our own particular situation?" Elliot helped sponsored and get ratified the aid-to-education bill and received strong opposition from racist Alabaman groups. Elliot disliked when Freedom riders and other civil right workers were attacked in Birmingham and Montgomery and felt repelled by the violence. By 1963, Elliot and new governor George Wallace were at different sides of the fence; Wallace publicly calling for segregation now and Elliot saying, "George, don't piss on my leg". Later Wallace would stand defiantly in the door of the University of Alabama in "a vain effort to forestall the Kennedy's administration plan to enforce the law ensuring integration". Elliot public spoke against JFKs assumption that the civil rights laws would calm racial turbulence believing the civil right laws were "too much to soon, and hoped the Wallace madness would pass away, having faith less confrontational steps toward integration could then be taken". In 1964, the civil right law was passed under the Johnson administration. Elliot believed the law was the law and it should be obeyed. In 1965, after "bloody Sunday" in Selma, state troopers and a civilian posse lead by Sheriff Jim Clark attacked civil rights demonstrators and Lyndon Johnson sent a bill to congress that ensured that black Americans could vote.
   
   Elliot decided to run for governor. Elliot's enemies, including the Ku Klux Klan scrawled, "never, never, never". Martin Luther came out for Flowers hurting Elliots chances for governor recalls Elliot, "I didn't stand a ghost chance after that day." Elliot found himself a half million dollars in debt. Elliot's political career came to an end, "I had pretty much become a political ... untouchable and I know that had to hard for my children to see, no matter how much they believed in me and the things I stood for."

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

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



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



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



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



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

5 comments about Never Give In: Battling Cancer in the Senate.

1. As a former intern for Sen. Specter, I can say that working in his office and watching him work was fascinating and inspiring. The more I observed him on the floor and as ranking member on the Judiciary committee, the more I respected him. Senator Specter is an icon for Republicans and Democrats alike, and his thinking transcends party lines. This book is a wonderful read, and I couldn't recommend it more. His dry sense of humor and great anecdotes are unmatched.



2. I am neither a Democrat or Republican. I saw Senator Spector interviewed on a late night program and was fascinated by his demeanor. He was charming, witty , and spoke freely of his battle with cancer. He had many foes in his political career, but none as strong as this one. Some of his 'good friends' offered synthetic sympathy, but he kept smilin through the rain and the pain. I bought the book the same night and, although it ddin't keep me glued to it throughout, it was well worth the time spent reading. With the way things are going today, we could certainly use him on the Presidential ticket in November.



3. really inspiring. after reading this book, I have no doubt that Specter will be able to overcome his recurrence on Hodgkin's with flying colors. probably take names along the way.



4. I applaud Specter for his hard-fought battle with Hodgkins disease. This book is marketed as an account of his journey through his illness. However, it is 80% focused on his senate career and the bills he worked to pass while serving on Judiciary and 20% focused on his battle with cancer.



5. As a Pennsylvania independent, I really enjoyed reading Specter's story on his trials and tribulations in the Senate while facing Stage IVB Hodgkin's lymphoma (the WORST stage there is, folks). He is feisty, ambitious, and, frankly, a braver person than many, in going forward and taking the chairmanship of the Judiciary committee, undoubtedly his life-long dream, while facing the ugliness of cancer. Reading this, you learn, this diagnosis is not the end, that life can go on and that, as Mr. Specter states many times, attitude is everything. However, this optimism is helped by his luck. Not all cancer survivors have a tumor that readily goes into remission. Inspiring for all and great insights into the Washington political process, including the surprising support and humanity with which he was treated during his personal crisis. If only all employers allowed naps during chemo and allowed you to come back to your job! Specter gets my vote!

5 comments about Fighting Words: A Tale of How Liberals Created Neo-Conservatism.

1. "Fighting Words" is an enlightening ramble through the thickets of American politics from the 1960's to the present. Ben Wattenberg is the host of the long running PBS show "Think Tank" and the love of word and ideas that is so apparent on the show runs on steroids through this book. The main theme of the book is how Wattenberg who started as a loyal Democrat became a neo-con. Wattenberg makes no apology for his break with the center left coalition that now runs the Democrat party. He uses examples of the Democrat shift to the left on foreign and domestic policy and explains the rise of the neo-cons as Democrats who stayed with the old values. These old values of the Democrat party included spreading American values and liberty throughout the world and affirmative action without quotas at home. These and others are the values that according to Wattenberg's narrative the neo-cons have stayed with as the Democrat party has moved left towards a world view that doesn't recognize American exceptionalism and domestic policies that strive for equality of outcome (quotas).
   
   But the best part of "Fighting Words" is not the main narrative. It is the personal stories, tangents and illuminating anecdotes that fill in the pictures of the political landscape that Wattenberg is painting. He tells a story about how Hubert Humphrey helped to insert "under God" into the pledge of allegiance in 1954. Another story about Adlai Stevenson, who ran as against Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956, quotes him as explaining a newspaperman's job "is to separate the wheat from the chaff and print the chaff."
   
   Politics is not linear and neither is this book. It tells why Reagan opposed Carter's Olympic boycott and offers a theory on why voter turnout is so low in the US. Wattenberg emphasizes his most salient comments with the phrase "sound familiar" but lets us the reader make the analogy to the present.
   
   This is not quite an autobiography and not quite a political how-to manual it is however a delightful look at the American political scene through the eyes of one of our times best political operatives, scholars and writers. "Fighting Words" is an excellent read that puts this years heated political debate into much needed perspective.



2. Wattenberg's tedious and boring text prattles on, making absurdist claims about the political issues he likes and simply dismissing any inconvenient points.
   
   This book serves only one useful purpose: to demonstrate to the reader that "Think Tanks" aren't really for thinking. They're for coming up with unrealistic visions of the world that agree with your political predispositions.
   
   As such, I'm forced to give it more than one star, because the author inadvertently demonstrates the influence of unrealistic ideology in American politics. Sadly, he does it by being blind to his self.



3. 
   This book reveals a lot about neocons that I don't think much of the public would have known, because of how the media treats the word "neoconservative." You'd have to know a lot of history to know that many of the neocons started out on the left - some on the far left. Wattenberg's pride at having helped to pass the Great Society programs of the 60s really surprised me. The Civil and Voting Rights acts and Medicare weren't exactly key conservative causes, but so many of us (including me before I read this book) thought neocons were the furthest of the far-right. Not so true!
   
   Promoting liberty and democracy for people around the world used to be a liberal cause, and it's been a loss for the left that we're not as strong as the Republicans about this. I think we could do a better job of it than they have (especially in terms of invading Iraq).
   
   Wattenberg is a good writer with an interesting story. Now I understand the neocons better, and know what's good about them (really, there's a lot), but many have become plain old conservatives and that's bad.



4. We are constantly assured that neoconservatives are suddenly recruited "out of the blue" into high positions of power, bypassing the electoral process, bouyed up on the basis of their raw intellectual ability. Douglas Feith also asserts his similar suprise in "War and Decision" at suddenly being recruited into the upper reaches of the Pentagon when Bush entered office. Such neocon tales of unexpected advancement couldn't be further from the truth.
   
   Ben's good fortune with Lyndon Johnson relied a great deal on one Mr. Abraham Feinberg, a self-made New York magnate who lobbied Truman for recognition of Israel in 1948 and financed the "whistlestop" train tour that saved Truman from all but certain electoral defeat. Feinberg and his group of Israel lobbyists were pumping tons of cash into Johnson's 1964 reelection campaign. As Seymour Hersh documented in "The Samson Option" (p 193) Bill Moyers and Mike Feldman had to move $250,000 of Feinberg's cash out of aide Walter Jenkin's safe after Jenkins was arrested for solicitation in a YMCA bathroom.
   
   Wattenberg owed his entry into the Johnson administration to this lobby cash and influence. His claiming it was out of the blue is either appallingly ignorant or stunningly disingenuous.
   
   Those who would rather deal in concrete facts about what Neoconservatism has done to America should consult the book "Deadly Dogma" rather than the current new crop of self-congratulatory tomes from AEI urging homily to neocons and more world wars for "democracy". If we don't start looking at neoconservatism for what it truly is, a kind of protection racket, we may some day all be warming ourselves over burning piles of Richard Perle's "An End to Evil" and "Fighting Words" in post-apocalyptic earth.



5. This book is not a good explaination of the neoconservative movement and it's a distortion of it's history. Wattenberg constantly makes the assumption throughout the book that the reader is not very bright so he feels comfortable in making nonsensical claims with absolutely no supporting evidence. This book is propaganda but because it's so tedious it's not very effective propaganda. Instead of an in depth analyst of the movement and how it works behind the scenes the book instead portrays neoconservatism and neoconservative thinkers as misunderstood and benevolent heroes. Wattenberg describes the neoconservative movement as if it just magically happened and like minded people just happened to be hired in delicate positions as opposed to neoconservatism's strategic and well planned rise. You get the impression while reading that the author is either lying or really buys into this tripe which is actually much worse. Wattenberg clearly believes the ends justify the means and gives no practical attention to the means neoconservative rule uses against it's own people and the people it seeks to liberate. This book can easily be missed as there are much better examinations of neoconservatism by authors who are not delusional.