5 comments about The Apocalypse of Ahmadinejad: The Revelation of Iran's Nuclear Prophet.

1. The chilling part of this book is not Hitchcock's analysis but the words directly from Ahmadinejad. It is an important read for anyone desiring more insite into the nutcase at the wheel of the Mahdi Army. If you, like me had heard of the Madi Army but didn't understand the significance, then this book is a must read.



2. This book is so current that I can relate back to it almost nightly as I watch the evening news. Now, I know exactly what the news anchors are talking about and reporting. A must read not only for religious readers, but skeptics as well. Stay informed with the world news. Read this book!



3. An excellent, straight forward biblical based analysis of the situation in Iran as it affects all of us. It is well written, easy to understand and shows the relationship of this person and his views against blibical prophecy.



4. Some might think because this author is a Christian who believes in what the Bible says about the endtimes that he is extreme. He is not.
   
   This book is the actual words of the president of Iran. They reveal his hatred of Israel and the United States and his willingness to destroy both.
   
   No one took Adolf Hitler's words seriously either until it was too late. Let's not repeat history.



5. Mark Hitchcock is part of the very disturbing chorus composed of figures such as John Hagee and Tim LaHaye who have created an entire industry of selling books, CDs and videos promoting U.S. imperialism by warning us about Islamic "plans" to conquer the world, or something. His latest, "The Apocalypse Of Ahmadinejad," is a direct shot at the current President of Iran, whom Hitchcock claims is hatching some sort of underground plan to destroy both Israel AND the U.S. to usher in the Islamic equivalent of the Christian Second Coming.
   
   This kind of fantastical alarmism is similar to LaHaye's own writings about Saddam Hussein planning to build a "second Babylon" to usher in the end times, a plan apparently thwarted by the disastrous U.S. invasion of Iraq which LaHaye and Hitchcock feverishly support. Like John Hagee's "In Defense Of Israel," "The Apocalypse Of Ahmadinejad" suffers more from it's basic lack of good history as it does from the radical, almost cultish religious angle. Consider that even in the opening pages Hitchcock admits he's not very well-informed on geopolitics or political/historical matters, something which should already tell the reader something about the book's validity. Hitchock zeroes in on many of Ahmadinejad's more radical, neo-religious comments pertaining to classic Islamic symbols and beliefs, the problem is Hitchock takes them literally, never mentioning that the current Ayatollah of Iran has even limited Ahmadinejad's powers as President due to some of his more looney comments and is reported to be weary of radical stances Ahmadinejad has taken.
   
   Hitchcock also conveniently ignores basic history such as the fact that the Islamic Republic was not born out of some Satanic plan, but because in 1953 we overthrew Iran's elected, very progressive government headed by Mohammed Mossadegh. The CIA overthrew Mossadegh because he nationalized the nation's oil, a big no no to corporate powers such as ours, and then re-instated the very brutal regime of the Shah who in turn was overthrown in 1979 by what became the current government. Hitchcock, like Hagee and LaHaye also dismisses Israeli crimes in the occupied territories or the fact that Israel is the only real nuclear power in the region, instead painting them as the helpless victims surrounded by evil Muslims including those pesky Palestinians who live in a horrific apartheid state.
   
   Hitchcock also backs the imperial occupation of Iraq, accusing Iran of causing trouble in the country, not the foreign army who invaded the place. But it all somehow works for Hitchcock because Muslims are the children of Satan and they want to destroy us because we're Christian and our women wear miniskirts in America. Iran is a very complex nation, it has the second-highest Jewish population in the Middle East and a very strong, Liberal movement gaining more power little by little.
   
   If tensions get worst between the U.S. and Iran it would most likely happen due to the kind of military interventionism Hitchcock reports, one wonders how he would have reacted to the NIE report, where all 16 intelligence agencies of the U.S. concluded that Iran has no nuclear weapons program. And if Iran did arm itself, wouldn't it be logical considering a foreign power is invading it's neighbors and Israel is bent on dominating the region as seen in the brutal war it engaged with Lebanon in 2006? Again, Hitchcock simply dismisses important things like actual history and settles for Biblical code talk, Ahmadinejad's more curious quotes (not more curious than what President Bush says on a daily basis), and a recycled apocalyptic theory. One wonders how historians will look back at the kind of writings the radical fringe of Christian America produced, let us hope it's not for the need of understanding what drove America as a society to an armageddon of her own making.

5 comments about Stonewall Jackson: The Black Man's Friend.

1. I find this book extremely interesting. The other side of General T. Jackson and the work he accomplished within the Confederacy. A must for the students of Stonewall Jackson.



2. This is an excellent book about a side that most people do not know about Stonewall Jackson. Not only was he a great general, but he was also a great man and christian. I found this book easy to read and really enjoyed it.



3. REJOICE IN THAT DAY WHEN THEY CAST OUT YOUR NAME AS EVIL
   
   REJOICE
   
   This book has had my name on it and I had a hard time finding it. The book is dear to my heart in that I do not think the whole truth has been told about the South and the Civil War. Somehow I may be related to Stonewall Jackson. Most of my ancestors were protestants from Northern Ireland as were Jackson's.
   
   This is the book to read to reveal a gentler glimpse of slavery in the Old South. Stonewall Jackson broke a Virginia law by teaching his slaves to read and teaching many others about Christianity. Mr. Williams presents this untold story of the famed Confederate General as Stonewall's most enduring legacy. Many descendants of Jackson's black Sunday School class completed divinity studies and have pastored untold hundreds of others in the way of the cross. The blacks of Lexington, Virginia loved Stonewall Jackson and that love was passed down for generations to people like Richard Williams.
   
   The book is a true gem, not to be missed for a completed view of slavery in the Old South. Thank you so much, Mr. Williams.
   
   This side of the Civil War story has not been told. Little do you know the real reason why Thomas Jackson left the U.S. military. His commanding officer was using his influence, as we would say today, to obtain sexual favors from a little slave girl. Such were some who liberated the slaves and their descendants are here with us today. The abolitionist movement was christian supposedly too, yet what a huge mess they made in my neck of the woods. O.K. Being a christian man of honor, (would that there were more these days), he quietly left the service, though his immediate family knew the real reasons. Most people see white southerners as hypocrites. We live in the bible belt, but we're not really christians in that many of us had slaves at one time. I could go on and on about this subject. Careful who you listen to, careful who you ally yourselves to; 99.99999999999999999999999% of self-professed christians ARE NOT.
   
   IF the truth be told.



4. This book is very informative and very accurate. It is told from the viewpoint of the Black People. I would recommend it to everyone who is interested in the truth about the history of the Civil War and Stonewall's compassion for the Black People.



5. Stonewall Jackson is a legend as a military man, but this book explores another side of him: his dedication to helping the slaves in his hometown of Lexington, VA. The author makes a strong case that Jackson was inspired by his Christian convictions to provide religious education to Black people in his town. He did this in spite of Virginia laws that forbade educating slaves. He and his wife and a handful of others knowingly broke the law in order to keep a Sunday school going for the Black people of Lexington.
   
   Other books have already discussed this, including
   Gallant Mrs Stonewall: A Novel Based on the Lives of General and Mrs. Stonewall Jackson, written 60 years ago. But this book goes into this part of Jackson's life in depth and also follows some of the beneficiaries of his Sunday classes into their lives after the Civil War. They expressed gratitude to Jackson and contributed to honoring his memory in touching ways.
   
   Many of us have wondered how Christian southerners could justify the practice of slavery. Jackson apparently recognized that it was the status quo and thought it might be part of God's plan that was beyond our knowing, but unlike many less brave citizens, he worked to make life (and theoretically the afterlife) better for the slaves.
   
   Richard Williams assumes that readers will agree with him on the virtues of Christian education, and in some places his pious tone sounds a bit high-minded. On the other hand, he quotes 19th-century writers with appropriate notes about the attitudes of the time so that readers aren't put off by their lack of 21st-century sensibilities. All in all, Williams presents a fascinating collection of research on Jackson's selfless dedication to a cause that was ahead of his time, and yet timeless.

5 comments about A Secret Life: The Polish Officer, His Covert Mission, and the Price He Paid to Save His Country.

1. "Sometimes it's not enough to do what is right, sometimes one must do what is necessary." Ryszard Kuklinski knew what was right, did what was necessary...and paid a terrible price.
   
   Benjamin Weiser's riveting work A SECRET LIFE, on Polish hero Ryszard Kuklinski, is an enlightening look back into the dark intrigue, personal danger, and moral dilemmas surrounding one military officer's private battles to liberate his country from totalitarianism. Most importantly, this work shatters the left-wing's liberal illusion of "peaceful coexistence" with a communist system whose very raison d' etre is the destruction of freedom, democracy and enslavement of the West.
   
   Kuklinski saw internal conflict to evict the alien system imposed upon his country by the USSR--as opposed to connivance or the wishful thinking of ideological transformation through "gradualism," favored by some of his Polish General Staff contemporaries, who, for lack of courage or personal gain, fully cooperated with their harsh Soviet task masters--as the only realistic option for peace in the face of Poland's likely nuclear annihilation, had war ensued with the United States. He dared to act accordingly, becoming an agent of change feeding top-secret Warsaw Pact military information to the CIA; thereby, tipping the balance of power in favor of liberty, while loosening the demoralizing death-grip of communist rule over Eastern Europe, as a de facto one-man Polish Underground.
   
   When considering the totality of personal sacrifice and enormity of danger faced by Kuklinski, in his nearly solitary and single-handed struggle against radical, state-sponsored evil--who carried a suicide pill to end his life if caught and was sentenced to death, in absentia, by the Polish Military Court--moral giants like Kurt Gerstein and Aleksander Solzhenitsyn come to mind. It saddens me that former communist collaborators or sympathizers, like Aleksander Kwasniewski, were celebrated or elevated to significant post-Soviet leadership positions and societal prominence, while the country remains bitterly divided over Kuklinski, who has yet to be nationally vindicated, though history has already done so.
   
   Former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzesinski said it best when he honored him with the words traditionally reserved for decorating Polish soldiers: "Pan sie dobrze Polsce zasluzyl: You have served Poland well." Rest in peace Colonel Kuklinski.



2. Weiser's detailed and measured tale of Kuklinski's historical contribution to Cold War espionage is to be read and enjoyed. His story is taut and thrilling and reminds one of a good John Le Carre novel. Beyond the issue of whether Kuklinski is a hero or traitor to the Polish nation [which is fairly raised and detailed by the author], Weiser never loses control of the subject matter, and, of the abundant documentation he uncovered in his unique access to CIA records. He instills Kuklinski with humanity and sense of Polish nationalism. A fine work to be read and enjoyed.



3. Gen. Kuklinski's efforts against a communist system controlled by an outside power seems commendable on the outside, but what everyone here seems to forget is that the same CIA that worked with Kuklinski, supposedly to 'fight communist tyrrany' was the same one involved in overthrowing legitimate governments, repressing independence movements, funding terrorism, assasinating foreign leaders who did not see eye to eye with US government policies and interests as well as many other unpleasant acts that sadly too many people either do not know about or do not care to remember.
   
   What Gen. Kuklinski did or did not do is known only to him and his CIA handlers. But things in this book must be taken with a grain of salt. In the cold war, the CIA was notorious for anti-Soviet false flag operations and disinformation propaganda. I only read half of the book and did not bother finishing it. Some of the events might have been outright fabrications.
   As far as whether Gen. Kuklinski was a traitor or patriot in the end really depends on which side one is on. To Gen. Jaruzelski, Kuklinski is a traitor while to some CIA official Kuklinski is a hero. But let's take it from another angle: Suppose Gen. Kuklinski's espionage efforts resulted in a covert CIA Op which ended up killing a bunch of Polish civilians? How would that be seen?
   What is Gen. Kuklinski's legacy? It is one of selling out one miserable SOB to another miserable SOB, for a price.



4. "A Secret Life" is a gripping read for two key reasons. First and foremost, it is a suspenseful espionage tale with unpredictable twists and turns. To me, it even stands among the best fictional works of that genre by Le Carre and Ludlum.
   
   The second reason is more holistic. The author, New York Times journalist Benjamin Weiser, has gotten at Kuklinski's heart and managed to successfully explore his motives and ethical dilemma for providing intelligence to the CIA. Kuklinski did not make this decision lightly. He felt morally obligated to do so, and his reasons for doing so are clearly spelled out in the book. When you read about these reasons, it's very difficult to disagree with him. (I do not understand the reviewers who call him a traitor.)
   
   I would recommend this book regardless of whether you are pro- or anti-CIA. Some reviewers here claim that Weiser's purpose was to naively lavish the agency with biased praise. In his introduction, however, Weiser references the "justified criticism" that the organization has endured due to its activities over the years, and goes on to say that Kuklinski's story demonstrates that human intelligence operations can succeed brilliantly, and should serve as an example for such future operations.



5. Move over, James Bond! Instead of repeating other reviewers, let's focus mostly on the intelligence-gathering aspects of this thriller.
   
   Imagine that you're Ryszard Kuklinski. The best way to avoid excessive surveillance by Communist counterintelligence is to make your daily routine as predictable as possible. You get a dog so that you can stroll around the neighborhood naturally. You give and receive signals to and from your contacts with chalk marks on the pavement. (These sometimes get washed away). You use your wife's iron to reveal messages in invisible ink, and take up hobby photography as a cover for photography of another kind.
   
   You dislike dead-drops because, for one thing, someone else might stumble upon them. You use the brush pass. As you walk per your usual routines, you turn into one of those impossible-to-predict labyrinthic streets so that you are out of prying eyes for a few precious seconds. During this time, you exchange packages with another agent.
   
   The brush passes go uneventfully--until one night. No sooner is it completed than you are hit by the headlights of a car. You try to duck into a side street but your move is anticipated. Finally, you shake off the pursuer. Were you seen well enough by the driver to be positively identified? You think/hope not. But just in case, you get a haircut. Luckily this time, you are safe.
   
   Even little slip-ups can be killers. At one point, your son finds a secret note that you had carelessly taped too lightly on the underside of a piece of furniture. You cannot account for a roll of film, and your colleagues speak of the discovery of a "spy film". (It later turns up in the pocket of your seldom-used shirt). At another time, you are in another world, and you crash face-first into a pillar while carrying sensitive information. Nice way to be unobtrusive!
   
   Picture yourself (pardon the pun) getting caught red-handed, by an officer entering the room, taking surreptitious photos of classified documents. You act normal, but cannot get over the fear that the officer has seen exactly what you were doing and will report you. Then, when nothing seems to happen, you still fear that you are being carefully monitored so that the Communist counterintelligence can trace your contacts and then trap everyone.
   
   You had better not carry a gun because, if you use it and then seek refuge in the US Embassy, the Communist authorities may have legal grounds to have you turned over to them. You fully realize that, if caught, you will be tortured into divulging information, and then be executed. Besides, the Communists will make a spectacle of you for propaganda purposes. For this reason, you request a suicide pill from the CIA. They at first refuse, fearing that an agent may take it in a moment of panic, or that the discovery of the poison could itself be used for propaganda purposes. But in the end the CIA provides the pill--inside a pen.
   
   In any Soviet-NATO war, Poland would be the route for 95% of the Soviet military advance. Poland would then get hit with 400-600 nuclear bombs in an attempt to stop the Soviet advance without escalating the conflict into a full-blown Soviet-US nuclear holocaust (p. 16). No wonder Kuklinski realized that Poland was doomed! (Some conspiracy-minded Poles suggested that the Polack joke syndrome had been a concerted effort to demean Poland so that the American public wouldn't protest too much the future destruction of Poland).
   
   Kuklinski's achievements were staggering: Tens of thousands of highly-classified Soviet documents passed on to the US (p. 300). And that was just the beginning. After his flight to the US, Kuklinski provided much information during his debriefing. May he be forever honored, and rest in peace!

5 comments about Grant: A Biography.

1. This is one seriously irritating book. There may be relatively few factual errors (at least, compared to Geoffrey Perret's work on Grant, a masterpiece of unintentional humor,) but McFeely's work is riddled with what I can only believe are deliberately insulting mischaracterizations and misrepresentations, tiresomely pretentious writing, and amateur psychoanalyzing of the most obnoxious sort. McFeely is particularly fond of quoting the words of Grant or his wife on some matter or another, and then proclaiming that--no matter how clear their meaning may have been to us poor dumb non-historians--what they were REALLY saying and thinking was something else altogether. If there is anything I can't abide, it's a biographer who persists in reading a subject's mind and putting words into his or her mouth and thoughts into his or her head that were never said and never thought. McFeely not only obviously believes he is much smarter than Grant (hah!) but more percipient than his readership, as well.

   If this book is worthy of a Pulitzer, then I trust my next grocery shopping list will earn me a Nobel Prize for Literature.




2. McFeely won the Pulitzer Prize for this book in 1982, but the conclusions he reaches about his subject have drawn fire ever since. Those sympathetic to Grant correctly point to errant assumptions and mistakes in character analysis. Most glaring is McFeely's insistence that Grant gloried in carnage, was insensitive to death and suffering, and was an incompetent chief executive.

   Actually Grant was one of the most exquisitiely sensitive men ever born and was nothing like the 'butcher' that McFeely describes. However, the research in the book is quite good and there are very few factual errors to be found, though his chapters on the civil war are relatuvely weak. This contrasts markedly to Geoffrey Perret's 1997 Grant biography, which contained inaccuracies on nearly every page. McFeely is most solid in the period of Reconstruction, though he is usually overly prone to criticize the hapless Grant. Throughout many chapters, it seems the General can't buy a break.

   McFeely's greatest admiration for Grant is contained in two areas of his life: his family relationships, specifically his loving marriage to wife Julia, and his abilities as a writer. McFeely leaves no doubt that he regards Grant's 1885 Memoirs as one of the great books ever written and the best part of this biography is in explaining the processes Grant used to produce such a masterpiece, while dying of throat cancer.

   With its flaws and uneven treatment of Grant, McFeely's book cannot be considered definitive, but it is still the only complete biography of Grant written in the past 30 years. Perret's limping entry isn't even in the same league as this book, in accuracy, writing or research. To sum up: overly critical, but a must read for Civil War buffs.




3. The book covers the important parts of Grant's life. The book has good research on Grant's youth.



4. Any good biographer has to have, if not sympathy, at least some understanding of his or her subject. Unfortunately, although this book is well researched, you get the uneasy feeling that Mr. McFeely is examining Ulysses Grant like a bug under a microscope. This is the classic example of an academic who lacks understanding of real life and as a result cannot grasp the dynamics of a man of action, as Ulysses Grant certainly was.
   
   Mr. McFeely also unquestioningly adopts the prejudices of prior historians without thinking for himself. As a result, an historian who DID think for himself, Frank Scaturro in President Grant Reconsidered, has rendered Mr. McFeely's book obsolete. Every biography since Mr. Scaturro has reviewed the Grant Administration with a fresh and generally favorable eye. As the last civil rights President before Harry Truman, Grant certainly deserves that revised opinion.
   
   Mr. McFeely's book is no longer worth reading, if it ever was.



5. I am currently reading a biography of every President in order. I must say that none of the preceding Presidents (even Lincoln) seem to be as difficult to pin down as Grant as to their "definitive" biography. In addition to McFeely's Pulitzer prize winning effort is Geoffrey Perret's offering, which seems to be universally derided as a scholarly farce, Jean Edward Smith's biography of Grant is clearly meant for a more popular readership (indeed Smith's commitment to scholarly research is somewhat dubious himself given he was able to produce a 1,000 page biography of FDR in less than 5 years after writing his Grant bio), and finally Brooks Simpson's projected two volume biography which when complete will certainly be the most comprehensive modern effort. McFeely's biography was the Pulitzer prize winner and that ultimately swayed me in favor of it, although I was a bit concerned about some of the poor reviews it received.
   
   I will state from the outset that I think most of the criticism of McFeely's biography I have read in other reviews is either unwarranted or overstressed. This is a straightforward "old school" biography that is directed by the research and not by some new spin that the author believes will help sell the book. McFeely won the Pulitzer Prize for this work and rightfully so. This is a comprehensive and balanced biography of Grant that is a highly enjoyable read on top of that.
   
   I'm not sure what the negative reviewers expectations were before reading this book. Obviously most feel that Grant is somehow misrepresented by McFeely, however I definitely did not reach that conclusion. I believe this is the best comprehensive one volume biography of Grant available based on extensive research and solid writing.

5 comments about The File: A Personal History.

1. While this book provides detail to what everyone knows (the Stasi spied on everyone, including the sixth of the population that worked for it) it offers very little else. Missing is any sense whatsoever of the psychological effects of living in this kind of society or any kind of nuanced understanding of what it has meant to confront these files. Ash gives some small indications of what his own responses were, but as a Westerner who expected to be spied on for his activities, his experience is not very instructive. Garton Ash has many things to be proud of, but this book is not one of them.



2. This is essentially an internal adventure story: it is the story of one man returning to his past and revisiting his younger self by reviewing his East German security service (Stasi) file. Ash, a Briton, was a graduate student at Humboldt University in the late 1970s-early 1980s. As a foreigner in East Germany, he was monitored by the ever-thorough Stasi, which managed to keep records on millions of East German citizens as well. Reading his Stasi file (made available after German unification) forces Ash to remember incidents from his past and reveals to him the identities of numerous Stasi informants -- some of whom were his friends. Ash then visits these informants and confronts them with evidence of their collaboration. In perhaps the most interesting part of the book, Ash visits the Stasi officers in charge of his case.
   
   While Ash's writings caused him to be banned from East Germany, he was never imprisoned, nor was he subject to the depradations faced by average citizens of the GDR. Ash acknowledges that as a foreigner, he was always free to leave, and this makes his file less interesting than those of true dissidents. Ash describes, however, the story of an East German dissident who discovered that her own husband was informing the Stasi of her activities and discusses his friendships with brave East Germans who bucked the regime, and paid the price for it.
   
   This is not the definitive work on the Stasi. It provides some background of the agency, but if you are looking for a more thorough treatment, look to "Stasi: The Untold Story of East Germany's Secret Police," by John Koehler. This book is worth reading, however, to understand, through the file of one man, why men joined the Stasi and how the Stasi turned so many ordinary East Germans into informants. Ash also raises important moral questions about spying and intelligence agencies, which are relevant to free societies as well.



3. This well written book describes the author's encounter with the Stasi, the East German Secret Police. In the late 70s, Garton Ash worked, and for a short period of time, lived in East Berlin. Not surprisingly, he was under surveillance by the Stasi. At this time, East Germany had the most elaborate internal secret police system in the world. The Stasi itself had thousands of employees and an estimated 2% of the population of East Germany were informants for the Stasi. After re-unification, most of the Stasi files became available for review by the former subjects of Stasi surveillance. Garton Ash obtained his file, over 300 pages in length, and compares it with his recollection of events and the apparently extensive diaries he kept during this period of his life. He also sought out and interviewed several of the individuals listed in the file as informants for the Stasi, and the Stasi officers overseeing the informants. The result is an revealing look at the nature of life in a totalitarian state. The discussions of, and interviews with the former Stasi informants and Stasi officers are the most interesting parts of the book. These sections show well the mixture of intimidation, appeal to careerism, and even residual idealism about socialism that underlay the whole system. Even these revealing anecdotes fail to convey the extent of moral corruption that pervaded East Germany. As Garton Ash points out, he did not really suffer from the Stasi and as a Westerner, he could leave or be expelled. The unfortunate citizens of East Germany were trapped in failing society shored up by implied violence, systematic undermining of family and professional ties, and hypocritical lip service to Communist ideals.



4. In The File Timothy Garton Ash confronts the people who informed on him after opening a file that the Stasi kept on him during his time in East Germany (GDR). He gains access to the files of the individuals who informed on him to the Stasi and also to the informants themselves by first stating that he has a professional interest as a historian and secondly, a personal interest because they participated in keeping records on him. When questioning the informants he often inquiries whether they remember informing on him, how they became informants, what these informants felt about informing and themselves while they were doing it, and how do they feel about informing and the East German government now. Often when confronted the informants seem to want to project blame elsewhere. To them they either did no harm or they were just doing their job. It was the Stasi or GDR who deserved to be blamed.
   
   The only thing that within the book that I wish was done differently was the author's placing blame on people or to find them as either good or bad. The questioning of whether they felt blame or guilt was quite different then him asserting these characteristics on these individuals. Although it is unfair to fault him for this, his personal investment somewhat diminishes the historical, objective approach I desired from the book. I would have preferred him to allow the reader to decide for him/herself the guilty or not guilty verdict.
   
   The File is a historical analysis of one file and one person's experience with the Stasi and East German Government. Because the author is analyzing his own life there is a deal of personal bias when it comes to how an particular informant/person should be viewed, however, this does not diminish from the book. Instead, it offers greater insight into how this individual felt about the GDR, the role of the Stasi in East German society, and the role of the East German citizens as informants. Furthermore, the personal approach The File offers allows the audience to experience for themselves the emotions and events of the author's life.
   All in all The File is an excellent case study into East German Society, the East German Government, the Stasi and the experiences of a captalist foreigner residing temporarily within a communist government/society.



5. This book was one you couldn't put down. It was such an interesting look into such an intriguing time. Especially contrasted against today's era of homeland security it makes you wonder what does go on in "civilized" countries.
   
   The insights from the informers, Stasi Agents, and MI5 are riveting. I am waiting for a book totally from their perspective.

5 comments about All Things Censored (Book & CD).

1. The wisdom of Mumia Abu-Jamal has transcended the grim sentence our system handed him. Whether or not he murdered a man is not as important as the fact that our penal system dehumanizes its inmates. Not only that, our justice and law enforcement systems are profoundly discriminatory, especially against minorities in the lower economic classes. The death penalty merely tortures these inmates until their execution, at a much greater cost than keeping them incarcerated. Why does the system kill to teach our children that killing is wrong? Until we abolish the death penalty, our society can not hope to be truly humane, and the blood of Mumia will be on our hands.



2. All Things Censored

   Mumia Abu-Jamal has not only a good oratory style, but also writes vividly and convincingly. Mumia has a rare perspective, as his background as a reporter and his long and unjust incarceration give him an understanding of the political economy of the media, which serves to silence dissent, and the prejudice of the trial and punishment system. This book is essential for anyone who has an interest in US politics, justice, the issue of the death penalty and Mumia's case in particular. It is also an excellent insight into modern American society - the aspect that we are discouraged from seeing by politicians and the media. Any person who has a grasp of America's recent history knows all about police brutality, the oppression of minorities and the choking conformity of censorship, but rarely has a writer conveyed all of this so clearly. If this book is inflammatory, it is only because that is the rightful response to an injustice of the magnitude Mumia has been subjected to. His case encapsulates the blatant and ruthless prejudice of the police and the courts, and their highly pervasive and authoritarian grip on mainstream media discourse. His case echoes that of Nigeria's Ken Saro-Wiwa, and it would be to America's shame if he were to pay the same price for his dissent. Don't believe the corporate-controlled mass media - reject censorship. Find out the facts of Mumia's case and then decide.




3. Mumia Abu Jamal is undoubtedly correct with regard to his opinions about the American Judicial System, and many of the essays in this book, on everything from rap music to jail suicides, are heart rending and angering. But with regard to Jamal himself, the claims his supporters make of his innocence get more and more tenuous the harder one looks at the case. And his silence on the matter is also a bit disturbing. If an innocent man were rotting in a jail cell on death row in one of the worst prisons in the country, he would not be reminiscing about the past and the significant flaws of the system--he would write ceaselessly about the circumstances of his case, why he is innocent, what really happened that night between him and Officer Faulkner, and perhaps give us a little insight into why even his own brother would not testify on his behalf. A lucid, unsparing mind, an amazing talent, a true political activist and revolutionary, yes, all this and a vicious murderer to boot. When the smoke clears and a fair trial finally happens, some of these young kids who worship him are going to be mighty disappointed. All the lefty lawyers and goofball celebrities in the world can't cloud the actual truth, as romantic as Jamal's background may be.

   I'd still recommend the book. Just remember what kind of a human being wrote it.




4. It is a very well written and thought provoking work. I truly admire what he is doing in such limited circumstances, further more appreciate his courage and strength. I was always against death penalty but after reading "all things censored" I was more aware why death penalty is such cruel and in human form of punishment. Must be abolished just like slavery!



5. 
   Abu-Jamal is an intelligent and insighful man, and the book is thought-provoking at times, but do people really know the details of the murder case that made him a celebrity? To me it does matter who the author of a work is. Please, look into the primary sources as I have since drinking the Abu-Jamal Cool-Aid along with many others. Racism, classism, and punishment for being outspoken all may be issues our society must work to eliminate from our criminal justice system, but they're not the reason Abu-Jamal was convicted. I am sick that I was duped and will not read more by Abu-Jamal.

5 comments about Just Call Me Mike: A Journey to Actor and Activist.

1. This personal account of the life of a personality known to millions exceeded my expectations. Although an autobiography, it goes beyond the typical remembrances of a life lived outside of and in the spotlight, pushing past the usual, and manages to inspire, and to make you think.
   Mike Farrell's integrity and commitment to humanity, to making the world a better place, are not just conveyed throughout the chapters of this book in his own words, but have been demonstrated in perpetuity by his selfless actions on behalf of mankind. This book is missing an important word in the subtitle- It should have been called "Just Call Me Mike- The Journey From Actor to Activist to TEACHER." An educator, he is indeed.
   M. A. Moore
   The Family Press



2. I am a conservative, over 20 years served, active duty US Marine, currently deployed to Baghdad Iraq. I am guessing some readers would wonder why I read the book. I know Mr Farrell is a little to the left, so what. I have enjoyed hearing his opinions on various political shows over the years so that I can hear what the left has to say. He has always been polite and respectful to all opinions, so I gave it a shot. I was not dissapointed, he tells a great story of how he became who he is, to include his time in the US Marines. I almost laugh at the thought of him serving, but I believe from reading this book Mr Farrell loves his country and is a patriot, just with differing opinions from my own and I salute his service to our country. You will read some about MASH, his childhood and how he became a activist. Be warned, he is harsh to conservatives, which I did not agree with, but I respect his right to speak out, and speak out he does. Maybe a little too much conservatie bashing, he could have got his point across with less, but overall a good read, just have a open mind, and if you are looking for a book only about MASH, this is not it. Semper Fi Mr Farrell, I enjoyed your book.



3. Although the trajectory of Mike Farrell's life might not be the stuff of timeless autobiography, it's interesting, educational, and primed me for hearing him at a speaker's event in the near future. There's some actor's insight here, but he doesn't dwell on that part of his life (M*A*S*H for him was a chance ride into lifelong celebrity). His family life is the typical married young and then had kids, "We weren't on the same page" divorce, and successful remarriage with children becoming high achievers. And his world travels to observe and testify of various wars and other political and social disasters turns out to be mostly by referral and invitation, not self-appointment. I can't say I disagree with him about anything. Mike Farrell has come far, he appreciates what he's been given, and earned, and his autobiography is a worthwhile pass-along book.



4. This book is terrible. Mike Farrel blabs on about nothing important and his thoughts are random and unorganized. There is no structure to the book and nothing to take from it. The book reads like a kid in high school wrote it.



5. This is a heartfelt, but important book. Mike Farrell discusses human rights concerns openly and clearly and in historical context. I must read for anyone concerned about the future for America.

5 comments about To the Castle and Back (Vintage).

1. To those of us deeply involved in Czech history or culture, this is an essential book. It's a fascinating insider's look at the choices a dissident was forced to make when he became President of a postcommunist country. But for people not deeply familiar with Havel's work, this is not the place to start. First read "Open Letters" and "Disturbing the Peace," then John Keane's (similarly unconventional) biography.



2. I just finished Vaclav Havel's memoir, To the Castle and Back, and the harsh feelings I had towards the book as I began it dissipated a bit by the end. It has an odd structure, equal parts an interview done concerning events before he was president, memos he wrote while he was president, and recollections he wrote some years after he left office, all interspersed randomly among each other, with occasional repetitions of texts. As a biography, it's a failure. By the end of the book, I still know little of the history of the Czech Republic, or what Havel did while in office. Readers looking for that should go to Havel's book, Disturbing the Peace. That book remains one of the most influential books I've ever read, and I still count myself as lucky for stumbling on it in a friend's bookshelf.
   
   As a piece of literature, though, To the Castle is a success. Fundamentally, it casts Havel (and all writers and activists) as a sort of postmodern Sisyphus. He writes in depth and at length about his difficulty getting motivated and starting to write. He write, to the point of being whiney, about his intense doubt that his writing and political projects will ever achieve their high objectives. Indeed, he seems to argue that writing is fundamentally futile: "man will carry the complete truth about himself to the grave." And yet Havel write, driven on by the "somewhat ridiculous" idea that "the world desperately needs the work in question, and will fall apart if it doesn't appear." I too like writing and thinking yet have intense self-doubt, and so I get great joy seeing that someone way more gifted than I like Havel suffers the same. I agree with Havel's quote: "I sometimes ask myself whether I did not originally begin to write... only to overcome my essential experience of inappropriateness... in order to be able to live with those feelings."
   
   Yet somehow the Sisyphean task of the writer gives him meaning: "He simply tried to capture the world and himself more and more exactly through words, images, or actors, and the more he succeeds, the more aware he is that he can never completely capture either the world or himself... but that drives him to keep trying." Imagine Sisyphus as conscious of the absurdity of his task, yet still drawing meaning from it. Camus would be proud.
   
   This book is also a lament, for it is perhaps his last, and is certainly written as such. Havel is sending a message: he did his best to write himself into the world, but ultimately failed to communicate his internal self. Like a mortal Sisyphus in old age realizing he will never reach the top of this hill, nor could have.



3. I enjoyed this book, but I don't believe it is for everyone. Two themes give this work its form: a Heideggerian commitment to the notion that his Being over the past 15 years is best disclosed by sharing the "average everydayness" of his former presidential responsibilities; and a profound physical and spiritual exhaustion with his role as fairytale hero. For hardcore fans of Havel, and for scholars engaged in close examinations of the post-communist era in Central and Eastern Europe, there be gems here. But you have to rummage for them. For the reader looking for a memoir possessed of the usual pleasures of clear chronology and steady narrative, To the Castle and Back will be extraordinarily frustrating. One other word of caution: I found the few passages devoted to Havel's first wife, Olga, pretty hard to take. My lasting impression of Havel's account, though, is of a man who worked prodigiously for the good of his country: One reads over and over again how he readily spent his meager political capital to remind citizens there and everywhere of the big picture issues. Perhaps nobody has ever played the role of public intellectual quite so well.



4. Vaclav Havel communicates with the open-hearted clarity of a good friend who happens to be a world-class writer. I find myself using his perspectives as I go about my life, far as it is from the great transitions of the Czech and Slovak nations from totalitarianism to democracy. Paul Wilson's translation is superb. Vaclav Havel deserves his reputation as a very human hero.



5. What Havel lacks in chronological narrative structure, he makes up for in depth and candor. In the intro to the book, he acknowledges that this is not a traditional memoir and he encourages the reader to move on to the next section should he or she become bogged down in and bored by the intricacies of Czech politics. To quote Havel in his introduction, he writes, "[W]hether you read it whole or piecemeal, I will be satisfied if you feel this book has given you something of value."
   
   As a professional writer, Havel demonstrates the ability to express his wit and his gravitas with equal quality. This comes through even in translation. Havel breaks up his story into sections: memos between him and his closest staff while he was president of Czechoslovakia (and later the Czech Republic), reflections from his then-current perspective and finally, answers to questions from a Czech journalist. The three parts are intercalated with each other throughout the text and give a very unique and enriching story of one of the 20th century's most fascinating world leaders.

2 comments about The Wicked Wine of Democracy: A Memoir.

1. Truth in labeling: The author, Joe Miller, is an old friend of mine. But enough older that many of the major Washington political players he worked with were only famous names to me. His insights -- anecdotal and at times painfully honest (he does not spare himself or anyone else as far as I can tell)-- are told with verve and with frequent high humor.
   
   This is a book for anyone who is fascinated with politics, especially of the mid-20th century. Joe was one of those guys you see just a small part of standing behind some famous Senator or Governor of those years. But likely as not, Joe had written the words the Great Man was going to say.
   
   The fact is that a lot of what Joe did as both a campaign manager and a lobbyist are illegal today. But they were "the way things were done" in the 40s, 50s, 60s and somewhat into the 70s. The good government people will cluck their tongues, but you can't change history. You can only learn about it and this book will not only teach you a lot, it will make you enjoy learning it.
   
   Joe has always been a name dropper. I admit to many years of taking all that with a grain of salt. Now I know it was all true. Here's a example.
   
   Forgotten by many now, but a major figure in California and national Democratic politics for years, was a man named Jesse Unruh. It was Unruh who spoke the true if crass words, "Money is the mother's milk of politics."
   
   Having a martini with Joe as the book came out I said, "Where did you get that fabulous title?".
   
   Joe said:
   "Well I was talking to Jesse Unruh one day when he quoted himself, saying 'Money was the mother's milk of politics.' I murmured in response, "Ah, the wicked wine of democracy."
   
   You should have a drink with Joe sometime. It is enlightening and a lot of fun. If you can't do that, read this book.



2. Politics haven't changed much in the thousands of years it has existed. "The Wicked Wine of Democracy" is the memoir of Joe Miller, a man who acted as a media relations professional for the Democratic party for much of the twentieth century. A simple explanation on his belief on how politicians get elected, and how to put the correct spin on the man you're fighting for, and the wrong spin on the man you're fighting against, "The Wicked Wine of Democracy" is intriguing, entertaining, and educational, despite its shady undertone. "The Wicked Wine of Democracy" is an insider's look at a darker side of politics, recommended reading for those who don't think American democracy is as pure as it can be.

5 comments about Strictly Right: William F. Buckley Jr. and the American Conservative Movement.

1. There have been a number of books published in the last few years tracking the influence of "National Review" on the rise of the American conservative movement. And while all have their merits (at least, the two or three I've read so far all do), this was the most entertaining of the three. That's because in addition to being a history of "Buckleyite" or "National Review conservatism," so-called, it's also -- as the blurb on the back cover says -- "an affectionate portrait of the man who started it all."
   
   The authors are long-time NR writers and editors and close associates of WFB, and so they don't claim to have produced a work with the olympian distance and objectivity (real or feigned) modern historiography seems to require. "Strictly Right" is a candid, relaxed, and very personal look at a man, a magazine, a movement, and the close ties between the three.
   
   Fans of the man and the mag will certainly enjoy the authors' storytelling abilities and their recounting of interesting and half-forgotten episodes. Readers interested in the history of this form of conservatism would, I think, do well to pair this book with Jeff Hart's "The Making of the American Conservative Mind: National Review and Its Times" (2005) which, I think, does a better job placing NR in historical and political context (Bridges and Coyne cite "The Making..." in their bibliography). Hart is another NR insider, of course, and so his book too is fundamentally sympathetic to the people and ideas discussed. He, however, has a jaded view of the magazine's relevance to modern conservatism that -- at least to judge by this book -- Bridges and Coyne do not share.
   
   From uniting selected strands of the Old Right in the 1950s to charting a course between neocons and paleocons today (the authors devote several pages to David Frum's 2003 NR ukase "Unpatriotic Conservatives," which read people like, well, me, out of conservatism ... at least as David Frum defines it), Bridges and Coyne do a fair job showing how NR has shaped how "conservatism" has been defined and understood on the American political spectrum.
   
   When you get right down to it, though, this is a book about William F. Buckley, Jr. And in the absence of any full biography of the man since John B. Judis' "William F. Buckley, Jr.: Patron Saint of the Conservatives" in 1988, it's about the best look we've yet had at the man who can justly claim to have had as much influence as anyone on the political and cultural direction of America in the second half of the 20th century. The admiring tone of this book may put off readers not already sympathetic to man and cause, and certainly points out the need for a more scholarly volume or two on the subject. But conservatives and even libertarians -- particularly the young conservatives Hart argues are disconnected from their historical and philosophical roots -- should find much in these pages to appreciate and enjoy.



2. I was quite disappointed. From its title I was expecting more details about Buckley's influence on the movement but instead there were tidbits with filler about his novels, his ski trips, and his sailing. Those details would have been important in a WFB bio. A reader curious about Buckley's influence on the movement would have instead been looking for what was not found in the book, which is more details about his conflict with the Birchers and the Randians, perhaps his differences with libertarians over immigration, with social conservatives over drug policy. I am hopeful that Hart's book will have more meat to it than the present study.



3. I was very excited to read this book. In fact, I asked for it as a present. I have been following WFB since I was a teenager and couldn't wait to get a full picture of his professional life and his role within conservatism and the Republican Party.
   
   Unfortunately, this is not the book for that.
   
   The book is written from an insider's perspective, but a completely uncritical, cloying one. There is more time spent of social details about NR parties and what type of hostess and decorator Buckley's wife was than on editorial debates and business decisions. I was dumbfounded to have to wade through minute details of who skied with who and which daughter of this important person used to ride horses with this other important person when they were young. You will learn nothing about Firing Line, but a great deal about chateaus by the time you're finished. As another reviewer mentioned, it's also surprising how much space is given to each Buckley novel, including excerpts.
   
   The authors, who were both involved in NR and Republican politics, can't resist being a substantial part of the story, turning it into more of a memoir of their experiences than a true account of Buckley's life and impact. You'll wonder throughout why so much time is spent on Spiro Agnew, who one of the authors worked for. Additionally, they reference themselves throughout with the odd device "one of the present authors" such as "one of the present authors recalls". You'll also find pages of shallow American history, such as a retelling of Vietnam.
   
   Again, I truly wanted to love this book. I hesitate to write such a negative review, but I really feel like you should have a better idea of what to expect. For people who were supposedly such insiders, I don't know that you will gain any actual insight into WFB or learn new details that have not been made public elsewhere. It reads more like a scrapbook for former employees of NR, with an emphasis on staff personalities and health problems, the social calendar and the authors' own experience.



4. Linda Bridges gives us the background on how Buckley and his magazine helped transform the American political landscape. In witty fashion shows how this individual could help save the world while having a lot of fun on the way. Young people may not realize how lonely and beleaguered conservatives felt forty and fifty years ago. Those were heady times for young conservatives as well as the rabble-rousers of the New Left. People took ideas more seriously back then, too, not just the slogans and PR cliches that are our diet today.
   
   Janis Starcs



5. William F. Buckley Jr. is here and there in "Strictly Right." Beginning with what its dust jacket promises ("an affectionate portrait") the book, halfway through, first sheds fresh or exclusive information, then primary sources, then any coherent narrative on Buckley altogether -- ending in weirdly detached conjecture by authors whose orbit from the founder of National Review and patron of modern rightism was close, but not that close.
   
   The drift would be OK if "the American Conservative Movement" were more than a subtitle. As the book progresses, biography is substituted by generic history, borrowed-interest anecdotes, and brittle gossip. The worst offense comes when the authors -- who apparently personally dislike Alfonse D'Amato -- take an opportunity to denigrate the former senator as they recount editorial lunches. Fair enough if they don't care for Al. But where does Buckley figure on that page? He is . . . referenced.
   
   "Strictly Right" is an unsuccessful try at a difficult task. There's a characteristic noted by most who have written about Buckley, which is that Buckley was by all appearances hardworking, focused, private, and a little impersonal. He inclined not to biography but bibliography: fiction; nonfiction; commentary, in print and on television. Even in writing his many, touching eulogies, Buckley focused on the subject rather than on himself. Faced with that kind of reticence, biographers have had to search; or like these authors, really strain.
   
   For those who wish to know the man, you can find William F. Buckley Jr. in the work of William F. Buckley Jr. At the very least you won't find him in this book.