5 comments about The Kennedy Men: Three Generations Of Sex, Scandal And Secrets: Three Generations of Sex, Scandal and Secrets.

1. While plenty of us already know the tale of this clan, this book is still a rather entertaining read. There are plenty of classic anecdotes about the ongoings of these men, especially Joe, Sr., JFK, Bobby and the rather pitiful Teddy, as portrayed in parts. It is often quite candid, if not humourous, however, does tend to fall into ruts at times. Overall, it's a good book with which to pass an otherwise boring weekend.



2. Nellie Bly details the peccadilloes of the Kennedy men from the 1900's to the 1990's. We get the lowdown on Gloria Swanson, Marilyn Monroe, Judith Campbell, Chappaquiddick, Joe II's jeep accident that left a young woman paralyzed, the drug use and the arrests of the third generation men, and so on. Joe Kennedy Sr. told his sons "If there's a piece of cake on your plate, take it". You have to admire the women that stuck it out with these guys. A good read for those interested in the Kennedys.



3. "Thank God for the Kennedys. Without them, a lot of bad writers would be waiting tables." I heard this line on a recent rerun of Law & Order and it immediately made me think about Nellie Bly's The Kennedy Men, one of the more superflous books claiming to give us the dirt on America's prodigal sons. Basically, what Bly has done is compiled a collection of facts culled from other, better Kennedy books and recorded them in the breathless prose of a tabloid reporter. There's nothing new within this book and, despite Bly's claims to the contrary, no valuable or new insight to be gained from what is basically a list of other people's dirty laundry.



4. This book is essentially a collection of gossip about the three generations of the Kennedy men, starting with patriarch Joe Kennedy Sr and concluding in the present day (well, 1996). If you enjoy gossipy reads (as I do) then you'll enjoy this book.

   The only problem I had was the sections devoted to John Kennedy were shorter than I would have liked. But there are dozens of bios on JFK out there, and this book wasn't entirely about him.

   Reading this book, it seems like Teddy & the third generation's recklessness with drugs and women are what ended Joe Kennedy, Sr's dream of a family legacy.




5. At least "Kennedy Men: Three Generations of Sex, Scandal and Secrets" never pretends to be anything but what it is: a collection of tabloid reports and gleeful gossip. The entire book has very little point except: Kennedy men are scum who break the law and treat women like dirt. But those who have ever gotten a dirty little thrill from tabloids will enjoy this easy read.

   It begins with the calculating patriarch Joseph Kennedy, whose many affairs were a source of inspiration to his sons. In this book are the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy, the Good Friday rape case, Marilyn Monroe's mysterious death, drugs and alcoholism, divorce and adultery, the Mary Jo Kopechne tragedy, and dozens of other tragedies and mishaps.

   Thankfully Bly doesn't buy into the sentimental goo about a family curse; in this book, it becomes evident that most of the Kennedy tragedies are, if not caused by their own actions, then nothing more than that -- accidents and tragedies. And it becomes quite evident that they did cause a lot of their own problems, such as Chappaquiddick.

   With a title like "Three Generations of Sex, Scandal and Secrets," obviously as many extramarital affairs as possible are going to be gone over again. Joseph Kennedy's affairs start it off, and Bly happily retells JFK's affairs with Monroe, Inga Arvad, Angie Dickinson, Gene Tierney, and Judith Campbell Exner. While Ted Kennedy is usually a side-player in such books, he's roasted without mercy with plenty about his conquests as well -- including one humiliating anecdote where he takes a drunken prostitute to a party, where she wets an antique sofa. The next generation isn't spared as well: While most of them seem relatively okay, David Kennedy's drug addiction and Joe II's car crash and turbulent lifestyle are aired out. The most vivid of the third-generation Kennedy stories is the William Kennedy rape case. And even "John-John" doesn't get off too easily: His more flamboyant and famous girlfriends, like Madonna and Sharon Stone, are presented as well.

   The entire book is written in bite-sized semi-chapters, giving the further impression of tabloid journalism. But the writing style is brisk and pleasant, never getting bogged for too long in any one area unless it's really important. There's a good array of photographs, at least half of which are onetime girlfriends of the various Kennedy men. (Look no further for one of the worst Madonna pictures I've ever seen)

   Usually tabloid books are disguised with dignified covers and titles. But "Three Generations of Sex, Scandal and Secrets" is unashamed of what it is, which makes it a guilty pleasure worth the read.

3 comments about Miles Gone By: A Literary Autobiography.

1. Thanks to this marvelous (as usual) piece the miles gone by are still with us. I don't know why but I find myself contrasting this favorably with W. V. Quine's "The Time of My Life". While I might occasionally read Quine's autobiography for insights on his philosophy, and find his life much like the rigorous mathematical logic of his books, "Miles" represents much more the sort of days I would imitate had they not already gone by. This is a comfortable book that leads to comfortable hours.



2. I always thought of Buckley has having four careers. He was of course that TV fellow that talked funny and look down his nose at his guests and viewers on a show that was very successful - Firing Line; he was that business man, writer, and publisher that started the National Review; he wrote fiction spy novels, and he wrote his sailing stories.
   Most people would be happy and content to achieve just one of those undertakings. One might imagine that running the National Review for all those years and keeping it fresh was an enormous challenge. I never agreed with all the stories in the NR and conservatives are now much more complicated people but if you think it is easy to start something like the NR, try starting your own national magazine.
   
   In any case I read many of his books and very much appreciated his sailing books. His book on crossing the Pacific "Racing Through Paradise: A Pacific Passage" was one of the best sailing books ever written. Hence the quote by John Kenneth Galbraith, who "consistently writes pleasant tributes to my own books, inevitably advising the reader that my political opinions should be ignored, my fiction or accounts of life at sea appreciated". Maybe you have to be a sailor to understand his books but it is unlikely.
   
   In terms of a biography it would be very difficult for Buckley to achieve the same level of literary excellence in a biography that he might write today as compared to some of his many past writings. So in the end his collection of selected writings speak for themselves and are most appropriate. He does not need a conventional autobiography - his writing for those of us that have read his books are perfect. We understand that was always his strength.
   
   How can one really criticize this book? The CD for myself was not needed. Incidentally and it is not really the same but George Plimpton came out with a similar series of stories which he called - a readers collection - in the book "George Plimpton on Sports" also available at Amazon.com, published in 2003. I read that book also and thought it was excellent and often very funny but less autobiographical. It is the same idea but for some reason it was never a best seller as the present book appears to be.



3. This collection of little essays by Buckley proves gravely disappointing. Subtitled "A Literary Autobiography," one searches in vain for anything resembling an autobiographical thesis, and there is nary a discussion of books, or literature, in the entire tome. In fact, the lion's share of the text concerns the author's sailing voyages. (One wonders whether he considers his genteel life, based on vast inherited wealth, to be his greatest accomplishment.) I don't recommend anyone purchase this book to develop an appreciation of Buckley's life and thought; if anything, the material here is just the outtakes with which a cult figure, knowing he would have an audience for his grocery lists should he elect to publish them, pads out one more book. In fairness to Buckley, I expect his "other" autobiography, "Nearer My God," to be much better. I look forward to reviewing it in coming months and allotting quite a few more stars.

5 comments about Reflected Glory.

1. Pamela Digby Churchill Hayward Harriman was a serial bride, and she interspersed her marriages with conspicuous love affairs. She was a 20th century courtesan who, apparently, chose her men for the money and gifts that they would lavish upon her.

   In REFLECTED GLORY, Sally Bedell Smith has done a scholarly and thorough job of researching and reporting the story of this rapacious woman. The only liason that Harriman had had with a man who was not wealthy was with her first husband, but he was the son of Winston Churchill, England's Prime Minister, at the time that they wed. For the rest of her life, Pamela used her Churchill connection as her entry to all things important--and, to Pamela, the only things that apparently seemed to have been important were rich men.

   She slept with English nobility--her own father was an obscure English nobleman--French aristocrats, Arab oil sheiks, South American polo players, Italian car manufacturers and filthy rich Americans. And she was an equal-opportunity mistress; she didn't care whether they were married or not.

   Decades after they first began their affair, Pamela got Averill Harriman to marry her. Thoughtfully, he died soon after, leaving her the bulk of his huge estate.

   She used some of those funds to underwrite America's financially insolvent Democratic Party, and a young politician named Bill Clinton. After he became President, Clinton rewarded her generosity by named Pamela Harriman as his Ambassador to France.

   Sally Bedell Smith has written an excellent biography of a woman who truly was fascinating, albeit in a horrifying kind of way.




2. This book is the type that I begin reading, and by the end am angry with myself for wasting the time.

   I purchased this book out of curiosity about Mrs. Harriman's life. Certainly the author dug up sufficient dirt on the subject to satisfy the most 'enquiring' minds.

   As with another reviewer, I am still mystified as to what so many famous men saw in this women. Not particularly attractive for most of her life, she apparently had a female magnetism that escapes the written page. No surprise, many women have had that ability. It doesn't read well for the male of the species, many of whom appeared as pawns to this woman's machinations.

   Ultimately this is a rather depressing book. Like others, Mrs. Harriman is in the end old, alone and a rather pitiful character. What a ride while it lasted, though!




3. I have not read such a good biography in a long time. Ms Bedell is neither enamored nor appalled with her subject (a sin that many biographers commit). Her well-researched book has a good balance between the broader historic narrative and the focused portrait of the controversial individual.



4. This biography separates itself from other Pamela Churchill Harriman tomes in that it reads almost like a fiction novel. Some of the salacious and outlandish goings-on seem almost implausible, if not absurdly bizarre. Harriman proves to be the most singularly opportunistic individual that I have read about - possibly ever. Although she does have her good points(although even her philanthropy seems perfunctory at best), Harriman(or should I say Digby, Churchill, or Heyward?) comes across as the most devilishly clever courtesan of the 20th Century.
   
   I recommend this account as one that makes for a most compelling, if not a trifle unnerving, read. From her days as a seductive young debutante to her days as the wily big wheel of Democratic Party fundraising and later as the U.S. Ambassador to France, you'll find yourself intrigued as you read about this incredibly shrewd seductress.



5. every second of every minute of every hour of every day of every month of every year of her life...and
   
   it is SO MUCH FUN to read about it!
   
   i read this book almost 10 years ago when i wasn't sure i could ever REALLY laugh or marvel at anything again... it snapped me out of languishing in the "Is This All There Is?" ---
   
   back to the absurdity of life, to [what the heck] get back into the game -
   
   pamela harriman was so BAD --- and there's nothing to admire here except that she did take good care of the men she stole from other women!
   
   you have to hand it to her and to Scarlett O Hara: these broads set their sights on things and Got What They Wanted...
   
   a case study in manipulation and the business of maneuvering to get what you want from others - a page turner!

5 comments about The Secret Man: An American Warrior's Uncensored Story.

1. Frank Dux has been exposed as a liar and a fraud in several mediums. The Los Angeles Times first exposed Dux as a fraud after the movie Bloodsport was released. After The Secret Man came out, author B.G. Burkett examined Dux's military records which reveal that Dux never left California during his less than 6 months with the Marine Corps. You can read the entire, bizarre, and sad account in Burkett's book, Stolen Valor. Dux's entire military career as a secret operative is a total fantasy.



2. Fortunately, I don't take anything at face value. Otherwise, I would miss out on a truly enlightening and factually informative book. Some of the comments that I read after reading the book I find are out of touch with reality, not the other way around.
   
   Great read as I had anticipated would be the case back, in 1996. When you stop to consider the CIA official policy is that fiction is never in need of denial combined with the fact that if there existed no controversy surrounding this book, the author wouldn't be a CIA whistleblower, would he? Otherwise, why would a government agency feel so compelled to officially issue a statement and deny Dux's activities or Eugene Hausenfaus's or the CIA's Cuban "plumbers" role apprehended in bugging the democratic national convention, the Watergate? The systematic pattern of behavior of denying what we suspect to be true at the time proves its real in my mind. "I think, thou'st CIA does't protest it too much!" Especially, since eight years have gone by and the denials given back then were eventually found out to be lies and spin control.
   
   Any person who calls attention to them self by calling attention to abuses of power are bound to become the targets of personal attacks. This is what the intelligence community is entirely dependent upon in order to survive. What they describe as plausible deniability. No fraud or fanciful reading going on here just our government and its friends hard at work at attempting to keep us ignorant and their friends out of jail.
   
   This guy has got brass balls! Frank Dux's reveals the FBI and CIA engaging in abuses of power by their involving themselves in the political process of our free elections. Discrediting potential political candidates as well as whistle-blowers, like himself (pgs 66-69). Thankfully, someone cares enough to speak out.
   
   This book reminded me that the freedom the world enjoys today only occurred because of the willingness of the few to bend a few laws and risk imprisonment to fight and carryout this nation's secret wars, in the 1980's. Just like what is going on in Iraq, Semper Fi, my brothers!
   
   It was a great read. I find it comical that I actually came across people that will say they read the book and then will chastise it and refer you to the same sources that Dux exposes in his book that are proven to be self-admitted liars guilty of having fabricated testimony and evidence against him, or nuns, etc. Making it painfully obvious they never read the book when you embarrass them by asking please "re-read that section" and tell me what you think of that... LOL.
   
   Why are people directing people to what in reality is a self-published author that is, at least apparent to me, relying on sensationalism to sell his own book.
   
   Dux deserves to be read as he stands up to and wont be bullied by persons who wield political power for their own gain and who under the color of authority committed heinous crimes against humanity.
   
   It's no surprise to me that General Singlaub (who is the former Chairman of the fascist organization, WACL, that is affiliated with the Bulgarian Nazi party, Ku Klux Klan, and other hate groups), was implicated by Dux as a suspected war criminal (allegedly, responsible for overseeing the executions of 20,000 civilians in Laos, Vietnam and Cambodia), and who was forced to resign by President Carter. I recall how Congressional Medal of Honor, Lt. Colonel Herbert, US Army and his book "Soldier" became the target of a propaganda/perception management campaign carried out by, you guessed it, the fascist critics of WACL.
   
   Informative and an insightful read that connects the dots for me between certain historical events. I believe people are motivated more out of jealousy and greed than some CIA conspiracy to stop this book from being circulated.
   
   You have to be ill informed or a complete idiot to consider it is just a matter of pure coincidence that, Lt. Commander, Richard Marcinko, USN, the founder of the elite anti-terrorist platoon, SEAL team 6, and his book, Rouge Warrior, was trashed in exactly the same calculated manner and by the very same people. What are they afraid of? Like Marcinko's book, this is the real deal. Otherwise, no one would care.
   
   After I read the book The Secret Man and did my own due diligence, shame on Publishers Weekly. I would have eagerly purchased it instead of coming across it by chance, if not for their "off the cuff" review. The only discernable reason for not being able to tell if Dux was posturing from creating a work of fantasy, as Publishers Weekly states, is made obvious to me or anyone else who has actually read the book. Apparently, the person charged with reviewing it either never bothered to read it or merely skimmed the work and couched their comments, placing it and Dux in a questionable light, in order to conceal their own dereliction of duty if not incompetence or political leanings. I had no difficulty in corroborating his statements of fact as being true. Five stars as it was informative while entertaining, I couldn't put it down.



3. if you.re looking for some ninjitsu techniques or action, its not something like that... but this man has some abilities that is used by his country...



4. The Publishers Weekly Review is so apparently off base and tainted it is painfully obvious it was crafted by someone who is politically bias or has a personal axe to grind. What else could it be with the reviewer willfully making false and misleading statements that are contrary to the readily observable facts; intentionally and deceptively declaring there is no substantiated or supportive evidence of Dux claims when the proof exists and is presented in the book!
   
   Aside from Frank Dux and his book being vindicated by revealing current events, shamefully, Publisher's Weekly fails to mention that various Official Government Documents that are officially notarized by the appropriate military authority as well as a sworn notarized testimony given by a Soviet Major General Korneinko (made under penalty of perjury) corroborate Dux story. Included are Soviet Identification papers of Dux. They are all presented in the photo section of the book for anyone to examine. Substaintiated evidence that pales in comparison to the common sense fact such reference books are as a matter of professional standards and practices vetted by a publisher's (HarperCollins) lawyers long before ever being allowed to go to print. Facts and claims are routinely checked and double checked. Unlike one critic of Dux whose source is a book that is self-published and relies on sources that all stand to financially profit by discrediting Dux. At least, this is what my own independent investigation revealed.
   
   Notably, Publisher's Weekly cleverly skirts their legal exposure (libel) by stating in doing their review they did not see the photos in the book. Indeed, how could they miss them? As a direct result I feel they are not to be trusted. I have lost all faith in their integrity or at least this one reviewer. Someone dropped the ball here or made it up as they go. This is a book you should feel privileged to read if you can find it.



5. I have a simple question:
   Whether or not this book is factual, should we not, as readers, think first about how good the book is as a story rather than a documentary?
   It seems to me that most people fail to realize a good story when they look into the truth and facts about it. Sometimes you have to forget you are in this "real" world and let yourself go to a world where everything is real and nothing is real. I guess what I'm really trying to say is: This book is meant for enjoyment not education, so stop making it so!

5 comments about The Conscience of a Liberal: Reclaiming the Compassionate Agenda (Minnesota).

1. This is the type of feel good no meat and potatos thinking that permiates the liberal left. An agenda designed to fail from start to finish because the author refuses to accept the reality that regardless of what you do money does not solve problems, accountability does.



2. Great book that begins where he was in college and how he and his wife met and how they became the activists they were and what a real progressive is or at least should be. And that being a liberal is nothing to be ashamed of! Sadly the Senator died in 2002 just before he would have been reelected to the Senate. Some of us still believe it wasn't the innocent accident some say that killed him when the plane he was on went down.
   
   Having said that let me rave about this book. I go to Chapter 9 titled A Winning Progressive Politics, where the author notes 'A progressive politics is a winning politics, as long as it is not organized in a way that is top-down and elitist. It must respect the capacity of ordinary citizens and focus on workaday majority issues. I have never understood arguments for the need for politicians to 'move to the center' to get elected. What is the operational definition of 'the center'? If what is meant is that you need to have more votes than your opponent, then I am all for being in the center. But this is too obvious. If what is meant by the center is the dominant mood of the populace -- the issues that are important issues to Americans and what they hope for--then I would again argue for the need to occupy the center. A politics that is not sensitive to the concerns and circumstance of peoples lives, a politics that does not speak to include people is an intellectually arrogant politics that deserves to fail.'
   
   Page 206 of the same chapter 'Clearly, there is a forgotten American majority. It is precisely this America that our politics today fails to serve fully and fairly. This America faces major challenges: low wages, insufficient health care, nonexistent pension coverage (the majority if private sector workers have no pension coverage), daunting child care expenses, rising college expenses, and exorbitant housing costs. These Americans can't hire lobbyists. They can't fly senators and congressmen to resorts. They don't fill the campaign coffers of political candidates. Only when these Americans are given proportional voice in politics can we claim to live in a truly representative democracy.'
   
   Page 208 'Not only do Democrats have too timid and downsized an agenda, we also have failed to confront conservatives on core value questions. I call the Republicans' philosophy the 'New Isolationism.' Not as in foreign affairs, but in human affairs. It is a 'Buddy, your're on your own' philosophy. If you are losing your family farm, if you can't afford prescription drugs, if you have no health insurance, if you are working forty hours a week but are still poor and unable to support your children, if you are a homeless Vietnam veteran struggling with mental problems, you're on your own. Whatever happened to 'There but for the grace if God go I'? Or 'Love they neighbor as thyself'? We need to replace isolationism with fellowship. We need to talk about community, about justice, about the goodness of America. People are ready for a politics that inspires them to be their best'.
   
   Thus this book is rich with common sense honesty that I want more Democrats to read and follow, rather than the disoriented, weak kneed, stand for NOTHING nonsense the Democrats are giving us now. This book should be a must read for anyone who dislikes with a passion the special interest, elitist administration, congress and senate we now have.



3. I was a great admirer of Paul Wellstone ever since the fall of 1990. Although I have lived in Minnesota since 2001, in 1990 I was a college sophomore in another state who was writing a paper studying the 1990 elections. I follwed the 1990 Minnesota Senate race, and was pleasantly surprised when he went against the predominate "conventional wisdom" and scored an upset victory (he was the ONLY Democrat to defeat an incumbent that year).
   For someone like me, who has been quite frankly sick and tired of the right-ward drift of the Democratic Party and the "play it safe" convetnional wisdom, Paul Wellstone was the antidote.
   I enjoyed the autobiographical narrative of this book, it brought back a lot of memories. I enjoyed his frank discussion of the inner working of the US Senate, and I especially enjoyed the later chapters where he offered hope for a people-centered, progressive politics.



4. I am disappointed in this book. I expected something more philosophical and/or well written. I admire Wellstone's work as a politician but find his writing rather mediocre. American history and politics are my meat and bread. This book does not meet my standards. I usually buy books since I'm a bookaholic, but i wish I had borrowed this from the library. It does not meet my standards.



5. For every good and fair minded person to read. It really opened my eyes.

5 comments about A Mighty Heart: The Brave Life and Death of My Husband, Danny Pearl.

1. This is a touching memoir. The epilogue letters are probably the most emotional part of the book. However, there are other touching moments throughout centering around the relationships she forms with the people who helped her through the tragedy of her husband's kidnapping and murder. It's clear she learned who her friends were and made many.
   It didn't seem to me that she lacked emotion, as the previous reviewer criticized. However, if there are times when she does, she makes it clear that she never wanted to give terrorists the satisfaction of her tears. People deal with emotions and adversity differently. She is clearly an exceptionally strong individual.
   The writing gave the feeling of a suspensful page turner despite knowing what the tragic outcome would be. An extremely sad narrative.



2. A very sad story. It also makes the anger towards these terrible people come out. I wish that Bush would stop being a sissy and go after these people. I also lost my husband but to an auto accident. Nevertheless, the pain is the same. I would hope that her story will stop people from going to these countrys for any reason. The US also needs to be more militant in going after the hostage takers.



3. "I signal to Danny to take the first (cab) since he is in the greater hurry. After he tosses his bag in, he cups my neck with his free hand, pulls me to him, and kisses my cheek."
   
   "In a matter of seconds, Danny is gone."
   
   Wall Street Journal reporter Danny Pearl was kidnapped then murdered by terrorists in Karachi, Pakistan, in February 2002. The person he kissed was his wife Mariane Pearl, co-author (with Sarah Crichton)of A MIGHTY HEART. I call this writing pure poetry.
   
   "There might be dozens of reasons for Danny to turn off his cell phone, but he doesn't usually. 'Your correspondent cannot be reached at this moment. Please try again later,' says the cheerily robotic, feminine voice... I will come to detest that voice."
   
   This is Mariane-as-narrator's first intimation something's wrong. As a reader, I know Danny's been kidnapped and soon will be beheaded, but her words "I will come to detest that voice" grabs my gut and shakes away that knowing. Maybe he'll be okay? Maybe the news was wrong?
   
   Marianne relates this beautifully poetic truth: "I call and call Danny's phone; it is never answered," and still I find myself turning the page, hoping Danny picks up. How does she get me to do this? By leading with her heart. My heart has to follow hers.
   
   Some writers lead with thier heart, excitement, fear, pain, joy. Read A MIGHT HEART for a glimpse of how it's done.
   
   Note: I read the book when its title was A MIGHTY HEART:The Brave Life And Death Of My Husband Danny Pearl. I don't like the new title. It doesn't say the book is a memoir. Perhaps this is a way to appeal to a broader audience.



4. This book is absolutely amazing! It's very well written and the movie doesn't do it justice.



5. Even after seeing Michael Winterbottom's compelling 2007 film adaptation starring Angelina Jolie, I cannot imagine the unrelenting nightmare Mariane Pearl, five months pregnant, must have felt for those endless weeks back in early 2002 when her husband, Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, was being held hostage by radical Islamic terrorists in Karachi. It is a tribute to her as both investigative reporter and grieving widow that she has written such a moving and cogent book about her husband's kidnapping and expands the picture to include an unblinking portrait of the man responsible, Omar Shiekh. His conversion into a jihadi is treated just as comprehensively as Pearl's more personal account of her relationship and eventual marriage to her husband. I was particularly moved by her story about how they went to Cuba to return her mother's ashes to her birthplace. As a former reporter herself, she is never overly sentimental, but you cannot help but be touched by the loving portrait of her husband, a tough-minded reporter who was also a charming dilettante and avid mandolin player. Her lucid narrative paints a marriage of great passion and mutual trust, and she successfully articulates his mission of building understanding between Islam, Christianity, and his own Judaism.
   
   I have to admit some part of me felt Daniel Pearl sealed his fate when he chose such a dangerous assignment, risky not just for an American and all the more so for a Jewish-American. But his widow gives me a much greater understanding of his mission and the passion he had to carry his mission through the most horrifying circumstances. It has since been reported that he was fully aware of his inevitable execution and refused to be sedated during his final moments of life. This added knowledge makes her book an even greater abject lesson in courage, which she delineates in the most poignant yet clear-eyed way. This could have been easily sensationalized into a clarion call for anti-Islamic hatred stateside, but her book is remarkably controlled and free of self-pity. Mariane Pearl goes well beyond my expectations in documenting not just a personal tragedy and ultimate triumph in survival but a true lesson in reconciling one's immediate circumstances with the greater purpose of building tolerance. Beyond remarkable books like Bob Graham's Intelligence Matters or Michael Scheuer's Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror, it is her book that captures the power of the human spirit against terrorism and will continue to resonate well beyond the upcoming election.

5 comments about The JFK Assassination Debates: Lone Gunman Versus Conspiracy.

1. The assassination of President Kennedy in 1963 was a monumentally important event in American history. The question of who did it...and why...still reverberates today. This book attempts to present a balanced view of the lone gunman theory vs the conspiracy theory by stating the basics of the case for each point of view. It then states the 'consensus...Facts' and issues a weak tilt towards 'conspiracy' by pointing to a lack of evidence implicating Oswald and the problems with the single bullet theory. This would have been a fine scholarly effort 20 years ago but in 2006 there is a lot of new factual information that the book does not mention.
   
   The evidence in the Kennedy killing primarily consists of eyewitness accounts, photographic evidence, medical evidence from the autopsy, and a small amount of physical evidence gathered at the crime scene. Michael Kurtz accepts all of the photographic evidence as genuine, most particularly the Zapruder film, even though much credible work by David Lifton, James Fetzer, David Mantik, and others have amassed convincing proof that the film was carefully altered. Even if Kurtz ignores the compelling line-of-sight geometric analyses that have established the film's alteration, he does not address the fact that the Zapruder film does not show the appearance of the gaping wound on the rear of Kennedy's skull, the movements by Moorman and Hill, nor the huge blood spatter that covered motorcycle officers riding behind and to the LEFT of the limousine. He also does not consider that the Zapruder film shows a gruesome wound to the right side of the president's head that was not observed by any of the doctors at Parkland Hospital only minutes later. He does acknowledge, however, that some of the autopsy photos showing such a head wound were obviously fraudulent which leaves an unresolved conflict in his position.
   
   In 2006, the 'autopsy' has been so thoroughly discredited that no serious effort would give it any weight. No one can even agree any longer as to who took the pictures at the autopsy, what was photographed, and what is shown in the photographs. The wounds in Kennedy's back and neck were never dissected to establish the path of the bullets. For all intents and purposes, a real autopsy, such as would be performed on any derelict body found on a city street today, never took place. The only thing that the autopsy establishes today is that Kennedy had a lot of brain damage and that was probably what killed him. Kurtz misses all of this and instead confines himself to a brief discussion about problems with the autopsy photos, which is where researchers of the autopsy began 20 years ago but have since traveled a great distance, a journey that Kurtz has missed.
   
   Finally, Kurtz gets through the evidence, determines that a conspiracy occurred, attempts to analyze who the conpirators might have been, and runs through the usual vague list of suspects: cubans, organized crime, and the CIA. Kurtz completely ignores, however, the one person who had the power to implement a subsequent federal cover-up, who had an overwhelming motive, and who had the opportunity presented by the visit of the President to his native Texas: Vice-president Lyndon B. Johnson. This is the single most glaring omission in a book with many omissions. A lot of information has been published on Johnson in the last few years that points the finger of suspicion directly at him but Kurtz never mentions it. Finally, Kurtz never mentions the potential complicity of some members of the Secret Service in the killing. The facts are that the Secret Service detail removed the body from the hospital at gunpoint, began washing the blood off of the presidential limousine while it was still parked at the hospital ER (there's a photo of this being done), and flew the limousine (which was the crime scene) back to the White House Garage in Washington DC within a few hours of the assassination and then had Ford Motor Company personnel clean the upholstery, replace the windshield, and replace the carpet a few days later. It is also a fact that many eye witnesses reported that the limousine drastically slowed or stopped at the time of the shooting, which was contrary to their training. Kurtz never mentions any of this other than to claim that it was Jacqueline Kennedy who insisted that the Secret Service abscond with the body back to Washington DC before an autopsy could be performed in Dallas, although he offers no evidence for this assertion. Kurtz also makes an odd claim on p116 that Oswald had time to fire more than three shots. This is something that no one else has claimed and, again, Kurtz offers no evidence for this.
   
   In the end, this book presents an old, incomplete view of the Kennedy asassination that tends to obsure the real progress that has been made by dozens of independent researchers in the last few years towards a resolution of the case.



2. Michael Kurtz is to be commended for delivering a fantastic overview of the JFK assassination case at this late juncture (2006). Of most value are Kurtz's personal interviews with sundry medical personnel and even three former Secret Service agents: Roy Kellerman (deceased 1984; I spoke/ corresponded with his widow June), William Greer (deceased 1985; I spoke to his son Richard), and Robert Bouck (deceased 2004; I spoke to Bouck 9/27/92). I am on 3 pages of this book. Get it!!!



3. The chapter on the intelligence community does not go into the CIA but Castro. This is a trick lawyers use. Everyone did it but my client. The CIA is out there looking for the real killers along with O.J.



4. Professor Kurtz complied a book of essays in which he compared and contrasted conspiracy theories and the official mythology. What was missing was the scholarship that one would expect from a professor of his standing.
   
   I was expecting an analytical critique of conspiracy theories' and the offical mythology's critical themes. It was not there. The assassination debate was the equivalent dialogue between bar patrons. Both sides remained basically unchallenged because neither could cite the documntary basis for their positions, the documentary basis being the foundation for academic scholarship. What a pity that I was duped into buying a book based on the author's credentials that were not in evidence.



5. A unbiased book that offers both sides of the JFK debate and the supporting evidence for each, sounds great right? And things are rolling along pretty smoothly until Kurtz can't resist wedging in his nonsensical viewpoint in a chapter hilariously "consensus", which is filled with misleading statements("There's no proof whatsoever the rifle was fired that day". No such test exists), ridiculous standards of proof("Nobody photographed the bullet on the governor's stretcher"), supposed scientific findings with no no citations, and outright omissions of fact(Kennedy's head snapping forward). Kurtz'z allegations are seemingly devoid of the recognition that basic extension of logic entailing them leads invariably to oblivion. Hilariously, although Kurtz is disturbed by the lack of proof of CE 399 actually being found on Governor Connally's stretcher, he seems untroubled by his own assertion that it is "unknown" what happened to the bullets that were "undoubtedly" fired at President Kennedy from the front.
   
   Do not swallow the disingenuous "detached and unbiased" hook. This book is simply another in a large stack of conspiracy nonsense.

No comments about The Kevin Woods Story: In the Shadows of Mugabe's Gallows.

No comments about La Era de las Turbulencias.

5 comments about The Sole Spokesman: Jinnah, the Muslim League and the Demand for Pakistan (Cambridge South Asian Studies).

1. Ayesha Jalal has delivered a highly impressive piece of work. The research is impeccable and the analysis rigorous. Contrary to most historical accounts of the creation of Pakistan, Ayesha does not engage in rhetoric or political slogans. Instead, her efforts to remain unbiased clearly come across and are admirable. She is a historian par excellence and her talent for writing clearly and lucidly about complex subjects is clearly revealed in this book. A provocative piece of work which might actually get students of India/ Pakistan interested in a subject which they have always found dull.



2. In her masterly work of deceit, Ayesha Jalal would have a century of research hung by the way side.

   A generally well-accepted principle called Occam's Razor says that a problem should be stated in its basic and simplest terms. The simplest theory that fits the facts of a problem is the one that should be selected. When applied to the events in the Indian subcontinent, the picture appears like a moderate and secular congress fighting to keep India united; pitted against a brilliant political-Muslim Jinnah hell bent on breaking it. A chronic problem of Muslims with peaceful co-habitation manifesting itself into Pakistan.

   But Ayesha would have us believe otherwise..... Congress a Hindu party. Jinnah and his cronies paramount examples of "secular ideals" (look at the poisonous fruit of their efforts .... The nuclear rogue Pakistan...) Gandhi .. the father of Indian partition. Even Bart Simpson won't say "I didn't do it" this innocently.........




3. Indeed, the premise of the book is correct, Mr Jinnah was a SECULARIST! However, by 1946, did he still want a unified India? I dont think so.

   By the way, the guy who wrote the first review.. I am afraid, Bias aint gonna get you anywhere.




4. You say Moderate and secular Congress :

   I say : "Mahatma" Gandhi and "Pandit" Nehru? Is this secularism?

   You say Poisonous fruit of their efforts "A Nuclear Rogue pakistan"

   I ask you which country detonated the nuclear device first? Gandhi's so called secular India or the Nuclear Rogue Pakistan?

   Kindly tell me where you acquires such biases... have you even tried to read the book? Have you read about Mr Jinnah? Why is it that people like yourself wish to propagate the same false myths again and again, and not salute people like Ayesha Jalaal who have done an extremely good job in bringing out the facts..

   Ayesha Jalaal mentions a very important fact... the Muslim Extremists and fanatics like the Ahrar were actually in alliance with your Mr Gandhi and the "secular Moderate Congress Party". Indeed Gandhi brought all fundamentalists and religious fanatics together regardless of religion caste or creed. Truly secular!




5. This is a excellent book on the history of Pakistan. Ayesha Jalal has done her home work and has presented the facts in a very logical fashion. I find this book among the few honest assesment on India and Pakistan division.