5 comments about Robert Maxwell, Israel's Superspy: The Life and Murder of a Media Mogul.

1. This is an E-Ticket Ride; in other words, a read with a roller-coaster effect obsorbing the reader's full attention. The revelations of Maxwell's high treason against the United Kingdom is alarming. Yet, what is more alarmimg is the complicity of the U.S. Justice Department and U.S. Senator Tower's treasonous activity against the U.S. Government and his apparent blackmailing of the White House... all orchestrated by Israels' Mossad via their willing agent, Maxwell. At the literal risk of their lifes, Dillon and Thomas have metciulously recorded the breathtaking facts we seldom, if ever, see in American media. This super-page-turner is THE hottest book on the market.



2. This is the story of the downfall of Robert Maxwell, a man who had almost everything that a simple mortal could dream with, a family, a billionary business, fame, important business and political contacts but with a huge megalomaniac complex that pushed him to play several dangerous games with the espionage of Israel, the industrial espionage and the underworld factions of the East mafias but his biggest mistake was when he try to play the blackmail game which put in jeopardy the security of the state of Israel and the Mossad agent around the world forcing then to "eliminate" this personage.
   Even though this is a wonderful work of investigation, I have some doubts about the sole responsability of Israel in this crime because of his several contacts within the Wall Street, the City of London moguls, the eastern mafias and the most important polititians of the world that he could put in danger with his downfall as a businessman or as a blackmailer, also it is very suspicious that many close collaborators died of sudden death or dissapeared.



3. What Carroll and Graf Publishers desperately need is 1. a fact checker and 2. a proof reader. Shameful display of factual errors. With sloppiness of this sort, why would I ever dream of believing the basic (and unbelievable) premise.
   Yvonne Adler



4. There are some good things and there are some very bad things about this book.
   
   First though, with the good. Although it's far from a literary masterpiece, it is interesting in its own way and it does keep one going. The writers follow Maxwell's life and by describing his modus vivendi & modus operandi, attempt to justify their version of how Maxwell met his untimely death.
   
   They portray him as a boisterous, pompous, bombastic megalomaniac, with an "unswerving belief in his own greatness, his total invincibility and readiness to bully and destroy anyone who dared to move against him". Extremely charismatic at charming into submission friends and foes alike, he's depicted as essentially inept at doing business. Born into extreme poverty, a Jew from Czechoslovakia, he always held Israel close to his heart, so mush so that he gladly agreed to become a spy for Mossad. In fact, he became one of Mossad's most valuable assets, that is before the truth about the shambolic state of his financial affairs started surfacing and his mental health further deteriorated. He then became a liability, and as with all liabilities he had to be gotten rid of.
   
   Although not watertight by any means, the case presented by Thomas and Dillon is plausible and, all things considered, does appear very likely. But...
   
   ...Let's get to the bad stuff now. Never have I seen clichés used in such abundance; stereotypes all over the place as if both writers were too bored to actually do some thinking and come up with appropriate characterizations; or the word "terrorist" used so liberally and carelessly and with such disregard to potential implications. What's more, the mistakes in historical details, the misspellings of names and places beggared belief. I mean, come on, proclaiming the jewishness of the Dome of the Rock can't be anything other than idiotic. Surely, Abd-ul-Malik, the 9th caliph who had the place built must be turning in his grave, poor soul. In any case, I still can't decide whether the writers had an agenda, were just ignorant, indifferent, downright stupid, or any combination of the above.
   
   Bottom line, if there were so many inaccuracies about things I did know and could easily double check, what about all those things I couldn't possibly know and couldn't possibly check? Judge for yourselves.



5. One of the best spy/Mossad books.
   you will not be able to put down this book once you start it.

5 comments about Ben Tillman and the Reconstruction of White Supremacy (The Fred W. Morrison Series in Southern Studies).

1. Ben Tillman and the Reconstruction of White Supremacy by Stephen Kantrowitz is a well written and well researched voyage through an ugly chapter in American history that still reverberates strongly throughout the entire culture. The selection of Ben Tillman as the focus point through which to examine the victory of white supremacy in the South after Reconstruction is brilliant and frighteninly effective. This book is not so much the biography of Ben Tillman but really the biography of white supremacy as a political idea and ideal. This book captures all of the evil idealism, political pragmatism, the unique blend of bomblast and subtlety, and, especially, the terror and violence used by Ben Tillman and his ilk to secure their goals of making the political system of South Carolina all white and all Democrat. It is a wonderful book of an ugly time that is important, unfortunately, to understanding our own time. Well done.



2. I'm currently reading "Ben Tillman And The Reconstruction Of White Supremacy" as part of my ongoing effort to understand the failure of Reconstruction. This is an excellent book that, as one of the reviewers has indicated, is more a history of the post-Reconstruction development of white supremacy in the United States than it is of "Pitchfork Ben" Tillman, although Tillman's life story may be said to be a perfect illustration of white supremacy. Tillman, as a "Red-Shirt" mob and militia leader, governor, and U.S. Senator,loved to brag of his successful efforts to disenfranchise Afro Americans through fraud, murder, manipulation of the laws and legal processes, usurpation of legitmate governmental authority,campaigns of terror, lies, deceits, and the dividing and conquering of any cooperative, biracial political efforts by playing whites and their fears of "negro domination" against Afro Americans and their interests. But more, Tillman did not limit his attacks to Afro Americans aspiring to realize the full benefits of citizenship: poor, landless, uninfluential whites, supporters and sympathizers for Afro Americans' increased citizenship rights, whites who disagreed with his policies and political rule, Republicans, and the federal government were all his enemies and he attacked all of them with the same duplicitous ferocity. It is all too apparent that the legacy that he left was embraced by racists and segregationists throughout most of this century in their opposition to civil rights activities.

   For those interested in the "real", too long hidden history of race and race relations in this country, this book is an absolute must for their libraries.

   In my view, Kantrowitz joins Leon Litwack, Ira Berlin, Eric Foner, W.E.B. DuBois, Frazier, Woodward and the other luminaries of historical writing who worked to provide an accurate, inclusive history of the peoples of the United States of America with this book. "Ben Tillman..." is a book that will fascinate, enrage, infuriate, disgust, amaze, and disturb its readers, especially those who recognize what appear to be parallels between the latter parts of the 19th and 20th centuries and the beginning of the 20th and 21st centuries regarding race and politics.

   Perhaps history is circular after all. Read the book and decide for yourself.




3. Professor Kantrowitz, a professional historian, has written a book that is revealing of the man and the times but too long and detailed for the nonprofessional reader of history. He has mined old newspapers from South Carolina and other documents energetically--and it would appear that every one of his index cards, so to speak, has been carried over into the text. Consequently, there is more detail than this reader needed or could possibly absorb. This failing is compounded by the author's inadequate treatment of Tillman's life. Milestone personal and family events are mentioned in a sentence, with no indication that the author is interested in Tillman the person--although, to his credit, he does on several occasions remind us that Tillman was devoted to his wife and wrote her loving, and playful, letters. But Tillman's relations with his children are not covered adequately. Nor do we learn much about his nonpolitical relationships with friends, relatives and neighbors. In other words, Professor Kantrowitz has scanted the biographical aspects of his book in favor of doctrinal analsyis. He has given his readers too many excerpts from Tillman's speeches, letters and interviews--primarily on how he felt about the place of Negroes in a white-dominated society. Kantrowitz shows that Tillman took a hostile view towards Negroes, as African Americans were called (and worse) in the 19th Century, and yet he and other farmers needed them as low-wage laborers. His racism and support of violence, part of his calculated appeal to white "producers," are well established early on. But the point is made over and over. Tip to readers: Kantrowitz, a disciplined writer in some respects, introduces paragraphs with topic sentences. Very often the supporting detail that follows can be skimmed or skipped because the general point already has been made.



4. The reader from Washington says the book is too long, but he wants more personal detail! How would that happen? Fact is, for a major figure in American political history, Tillman has found biographer whose economy of language is commendable; Kantrowitz only uses 309 pages to do a magnificent job of storytelling and analysis. And it is a great read, especially given the deep and subtle insights that Kantrowitz squeezes from this Dixie demogogue's pernicious but important career. And he does so without turning Tillman into a demon, but rather by revealing that the Senator was not so much a tribute but a trickster of the people, and far from being a populist, served the richest and most powerful of his constituents as he poured salt into the worst of the nation's wounds--the scar of white supremacy. This book is eloquent and profound, and could scarely have been better crafted.



5. Obvious agenda here by a shallow author looking to capitalize on a recently re-elevated subject. The entire book fails to make any positive remarks about the most popular and elected politician in the history of the state of South Carolina. Most of the research by this "author" is conveniently taken from anti-Tillman press while bypassing all of the many contributions to the state and to the U.S. Senate. Tillman was honored and revelled by many fellow U.S. Senators from opposing parties (and from Northern States). He established Clemson University, Winthrop College and the Charleston Naval Shipyard. There were two U.S. Navy Ships named after him. None of these accomplishments and honors are worthy of mention by this spin artist. He conveniently chose to omit, and obviously failed to research, Tillman's admirable private and personal life as it would destroy the credibility of the subject and agenda.

   Kantrowitz fails miserably in the area of accurate and balanced historical journalism. The slant is conspicuous and offensive and breaks the golden rule of interpreting sources and historic events in the context of the times they were written.

   Don't waste your time or money.

5 comments about The Sack of Rome: How a Beautiful European Country with a Fabled History and a Storied Culture Was Taken Over by a Man Named Silvio Berlusconi.

1. I hope this is not the future of democracy becasue I find it scary to contemplate. A well written, hard-to-put down book that is not difficult to follow. I found the last chapter particularly interesting as it pertains to US politics.
   
   Younger American readers who do not remember a less politicized media atmosphere may well wonder what the fuss is all about: Fox is the norm to them, and to many, the print media is a bastion of the left. If anything, the book reminds us that there is a difference between fact and opinion. A very timely read and, for those of us who love Italy, a very upsetting view of what politics in Italy has become.
   
   The only fault I found with the book is some repetition from chapter to chapter with respect to examples/quotes, although this may be because the chapters could have been printed separately in various publications. Still a worthwhile read.



2. 
   Stille has put together a thought provoking book. Presaged by Orwell, the SB story defines the age we are living in, and those of us who care about democracy need to understand it.
   
   To achieve his vast wealth, SB and his associates broke and skirted many laws. By selling himself through his monopolistic media empire (and the image of his new party named for his popular soccer team) in three months time, he achieved prosecutorial immunity by taking over the reins of government.
   
   As Prime Minister, with most of Parliament on his personal payroll, SB effected the release all imprisoned for corruption. Ousted as PM, still powerful, SB got a law enabling witness to opt out of testifying. Back again as PM, a law whereby those accused can chose their prosecutors! This is no where near the tip of the iceberg!
   
   Stille gives us a step by step of this rise and how he used the power he got to avoid prosecution for ever growing lists of crimes. He used the media to polarize the country and create crises. He cast his enemies as scum who hated him for his virtue & would destroy the country if given any power. By controlling the media he was able to discredit everyone who criticized the least thing about him. Each different media outlet (which he controlled, although he made them seem independent) echoed his point of view and made his distortions the conventional wisdom. Books, journals, and higher brow newpapers (permanance and nuance) being the province of the small group who knew about and could document his abuses of power, he discredited it as elitist. The many who spent 3-5 hours a day watching and glimpsing TV integrated the reality he fed them and believed his stories to be facts. He saw to it that the few journalists who might divulge his crimes would never work again. Pay offs of money, influence and/or career opportunities worked too and controlling the judiciary took care of everything else. Stille documents all these with specifics.
   
   I'd like to know more about the brave Italian prosecutors who press on despite the dangers of the Mafia and Berlusconi.
   
   While there is analysis throughout, Stille ties the story up with comparisons to the highly concentrated media developing in the US and its desire for federal approvals for further concentration. One parallel he doesn't bring out here is that of the two comedians who break the chorus praise for SB. Hopefully, the 100+ cable channels, a vibrant internet, the size and nature of our country (the US), and the economics of our entertainment exports will protect us in the US from this sort of monarchy.
   
   This is an excellent book. It's a slow read for those not familiar with Italian politics, but very worthwhile.
   
   The metaphor is so important that I hope that some cable channel can give us a Dallas or West Wing style series based in it. Hear me HBO! This is as big as the Sopranos! Call it "Rome II".



3. This book gives a shocking view of the ugly underbelly of Italian politics. I'm glad I pushed through it, though I was quite tempted to give up a number of times. The book is like the dumping of truckloads of dirt: what is at first scandalous and intriguing does, at times, become the dull and mechanical listing of the details of another five incidents of corruption. It's like reading a catalog of the circus that is Italian politics from 1990 to 2006, alternating between shocking and tedious. One cannot avoid noting the irony that, like its subject, the book verges on the chaotic and could benefit from self-restraint.
   
   As other reviewers have observed, the book is repetitive, and appears not to have been edited to put the chapters -- perhaps free-standing articles -- together. One just wants to send this back to the talented author for a rewrite. Perhaps someone did but, having gorged and been disgusted by the excess of it all, Stille could not bear it chew it over further.



4. Unlike several other well-known Berlusconi tomes, Stille's book is unusually balanced. Like the other books however, he is forced to rehash much biographical material and if you have read other Berlusconi bios this can deaden the pace at times. In my opinion, what makes this book interesting and lip-quavering at points, is its explanation of Berlusconi as a peculiarly Italian phenomenon. Without the context of provincialism, anti-competitiveness, and the endemic corruption of the political establishment, Berlusconi simply could not have flourished. Whether one approves or disapproves of Berlusconi's political forays, surrounded by cadres drawn often from his own business interests, the reality as Stilles shows is that Berlusconi emerged at the right time and in the right place (Milan). What is shocking (leaving aside revelations of Mafia interests, blatant disregard of national broadcasting codes, planning laws and so forth) is Stille's underlying, subterranean, thesis that Italy is constitutionally tuned to corruption and moral laxity in high places. There is no point in retelling the many of the wonderfully unnerving vignettes about Berlusconi's intrigues that are often cited as an affront to liberal democracy in the book, suffice it to say that without a horde of supporting characters, the Berlusconi phenomenon could never have flourished. Reflect on that for a moment to appreciate the real service done by this book.



5. Alexander Stille distinguished himself, as a hard hitting journalist, in his revealing, gruesomely titled book, "Excellent Cadavers," about the Mafia in Sicily leading to the corruption the Italian government and the arrest of Guilio Andreotti. His heroes are the martyred prosecutors; Giovanni Falcone and Paolo Borsellino, assassinated by the mob. Italian justice being what it is Andreotti never went to jail. Stille now targets Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister in the late nineties and then for a longer stretch after 2000 and a far worthier subject when it comes institutional corruption. Berlusconi at the time of this review, may well succeed Romano Prodi, whose government just fell. The horror continues in the cesspool called Italian politics.
   
   Stille's main driving focus is on Berlusconi's wealth accumulation, drive to power, mob contacts, undermining of the press, the political formation of Forza Italia, and his short first administration; regrettably, this riveting story becomes vague and repetitious on the press theme in describing the second Berlusconi imperium. But by this time, one gets the gist; mud, money, mob, slime, cover up, just more of it for a longer period of time.
   
   For about fifteen pages near the end, Stille extrapolates all that is wrong with Berlusconi's governance to the world wide concentration of media control in the hands of "the vast right wing conspiracy" and his own policy differences with the Bush Administration. His rant becomes a Tourette's Syndrome diatribe manifestly based on an European slim knowledge of American politics, too much reading of Paul Krugman and the New York Times editorials, and a daily gorging of CNN from overseas. It forces the reader - if only for a moment to think; maybe Silvio is not that bad. But then the urge passes and one gives Stille the benefit of the doubt and one fondly recalls Tuscan wine, Venetian vistas and Florentine masterpieces.

5 comments about Dwight D. Eisenhower.

1. There really could have been so much more said of this man, this General who led our troops during the Second World War, who entered politics in order to preserve the peace. In this short volume (the series is generally short and introductory in nature) the author, Tom Wicker, misses so many chances to engage his reader into discovering Dwight D. Eisenhower.
   
   Something I found especially difficult to ignore was the glaring omission of any mention (I believe there was but one fleating reference) of the Interstate Highway Act...something which arguably did more to change the face of American life and culture than any other measure of the time.
   
   Wicker does manage to capture a bit of character in discussing the 34th President of the United States. We are introduced to a man who served his country as both a military commander and as Commander-in Chief, who, following his first-hand experiences in war beleived that war should always be the option of last resort. Eisenhower's Farewell Address, warning his country against the dangers of an organized military complex, still is remarkable today.
   
   However, what Mr. Wicker does most successfully is present Eisenhower's failures. As president, Eisenhower was unwilling to spend political capital on divisive, politically-charged issues such as the growing tension of the Civil Rights struggle and the anti-communist witch hunts spurned by Senator Joseph McCarthy and HUAC (the House Un-American Activities Commitee). A more compelling figure might have stood up and directed his country through such difficult times; Eisenhower failed to act.
   
   Unfortunately, so does Wicker. The pages here feel as though the author slept through most of the writing. The book skims the surface of any real substantive discovery of what Wicker refers to as "the most popular president of modern times."



2. FIRST OF ALL, I TEACH HISTORY FOR A LIVING, SO I KNEW QUITE A BIT ABOUT THE SUBJECT MATTER BEFORE READING WICKER AND AMBROSE'S BOOKS. AFTER READING BOTH PIECES OF WORK, I CAN STILL DECLARE "I LIKE IKE." NO QUALITY, RELIABLE PIECE OF HISTORICAL WORK SHOULD HAVE A PERSONAL SLANT BY THE WRITER HIMSELF. IS THIS BOOK PERFECTLY WRITTEN? CERTAINLY NOT. IS IT WORTHY OF BEING READ; CERTAINLY. I HAVE TO ADMIT THOUGH, IT DOES HAVE A VERY NEGATIVE SLANT TOWARD IKE, ALMOST A PERSONALLY NEGATIVE SLANT.
   
   HOWEVER AFTER READING AMBROSE'S WORK ON IKE, YOU ALMOST FEEL AS IF IKE WAS THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST. AMBROSE WHITEWASHED IKE'S FLAWS COMPLETELY. I THINK AMBROSE WAS ENAMORED WITH IKE. HELL, WHO WOULDN'T BE? THE MAN LED THE BIGGEST BUNCH OF HEADCASES (PATTON, MONTY, CLARK, MACARTHUR, AND DE GAULLE) IN WWII (OUTSIDE OF THE AXIS POWERS) TO VICTORY! IKE WAS A TREMENDOUSLY FLAWED INDIVIDUAL, BUT WHO ON EARTH ISN'T? I AGREE WITH THE OLD SAYING, "A MAN IS NEITHER GOOD NOR BAD FOR ONE ACTION." OR SEVERAL ACTIONS WITH IKE!
   
   I BELIEVE THAT MAYBE READING BOTH OF THESE GIVES YOU A BETTER PERSPECTIVE ON IKE RATHER THAN JUST PICKING ONE OVER THE OTHER. ONE PRESENTS IKE AS THE ANTI-CHRIST, AND THE OTHER PRESENTS IKE AS CHRIST REBORN. I'LL LET YOU DECIDE WHICH IS WHICH. IT WON'T TAKE YOU LONG.
   
   FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO THINK THAT THIS BOOK IS "TOO CRITICAL OF EISENHOWER", THE FACTS ARE WHAT THEY ARE! HE DID NOT INTEGRATE THE ARMED FORCES, TRUMAN DID. EISENHOWER DID HAVE AN AFFAIR WITH HIS BRITISH SECRETARY AND WAS TRYING TO LEAVE MAMIE, NO MATTER HOW AMBROSE TRIES TO DOWNPLAY IT. EISENHOWER WAS TREMENDOUSLY WEAK IN URGING CIVIL RIGHTS REFORM WHEN HE SPOKE TO SEVERAL KEY SOUTHERN SENATORS AND TOLD THEM THAT HE WAS ONLY SENDING IN FEDERAL TROOPS TO LITTLE ROCK BECAUSE HIS "OFFICE DEMANDED IT, BUT IT WAS GOING TO BE THE MILDEST OF CIVIL RIGHTS REFORM POSSIBLE." IF ANY PRESIDENT HAD THE PUBLIC SUPPORT TO BRING ABOUT RADICAL CIVIL RIGHTS REFORM, IT WAS IKE. HE WASTED THAT OPPORTUNITY COMPLETELY. IKE ALSO HUNG MARSHALL (A CLOSE PERSONAL "FRIEND" AND MENTOR) OUT TO DRY WHEN MCCARTHY BEGAN TO ACCUSE G.C. MARSHALL OF BEING A COMMIE IN THE EARLY 50'S. HE SOLD MARSHALL DOWN THE RIVER TO FURTHER HIS OWN POLITICAL CAREER. TRUMAN'S RELATIONSHIP WITH IKE DID NOT GO SOUTH BECAUSE AS AMBROSE CLAIMED, "IKE WAS A REPUBLICAN", IT WENT SOUTH BECAUSE IKE WAS EXTREMELY RUDE TO TRUMAN'S WIFE, BESS, ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS, AND BECAUSE TRUMAN BELIEVED IN LOYALTY TO YOUR FRIENDS (MARSHALL) NO MATTER HOW MUCH IT MIGHT HURT YOUR POLITICAL ASPIRATIONS. IF ONE REMEMBERS CORRECTLY, TRUMAN ACTUALLY APPOINTED A REPUBLICAN TO THE SUPREME COURT DURING HIS PRESIDENCY. SO THE "REPUBLICAN ARGUMENT" DOESN'T HOLD WATER AND IF AMBROSE HAD READ ANYTHING ON TRUMAN, HE WOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT. IKE ONLY DISTANCED HIMSELF FROM MCCARTHY WHEN IKE FELT MCCARTHY MAY ACTUALLY SAY SOMETHING NEGATIVE ABOUT IKE PERSONALLY, SINCE HE WAS THE FORMER HEAD OF THE ARMY THAT MACCARTHY WAS ACCUSING OF BEING LED BY REDS. BOTH BOOKS ARE FLAWED, AS WAS IKE THE MAN.



3. Wicker shows the complexities of our 34th President. Eisenhower was a great wartime commander. He led men into battle and exercised diplomacy in his wartime alliance. He was a so-so president who did some memorable things. Ike started the intrastate highway system, warned against the military-industrial complex, toppled two legitimate governments (Iran, Guatemala) and came close to a nuclear test ban treaty. He was a man many Americans treated as a father figure. He won two terms as President. Many people would have voted him a third term if the law allowed it. He was against the Brown vs. Board of Education decision but used the military to back up the judiciary.
   
   Wicker spent a week with Eisenhower in 1962. Even though his admiration of President and General Eisenhower in there, his book is a fair accessment of this great American. Eisenhower may not have been a great President, but he was far better than most of our chief executives.



4. As I write, our country is in the midst of a highly contentious presidential campaign, including, today, the sharply-fought Pennsylvania primary. In light of the furor of the ongoing campaign, I have been trying to revisit the American presidents in the short series of biographies edited by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. I thought a consideration of our 34th President, Dwight D. Eisenhower would be especially appropriate for these tumultous events. I was alive during the Truman presidency but Eisenhower was the first president I can remember. I have always had the sense that he was, somehow, undervalued as a leader. Thus I was eager to read Tom Wicker's brief biography.
   
   Wicker admits at the outset that he was never a political supporter of Eisenhower. With that in mind, his admiration for Eisenhower as a person and for some of his accomplishments as President comes through in this book. I didn't find this book as harsh or unfair towards Eisenhower as did some of my fellow reviewers. Yet I agree that Eisenhower warrants a more detailed look than Wicker's and, indeed, deserves more.
   
   Eisenhower (1890 -- 1969) was born in Texas but grew up in Kansas. He served two terms as the 34th president (1953 -- 1961). Wicker's book, probably for reasons of space, quickly passes over Eisenhower's early life, including his extraordinary military career, to focus on the eight years of his presidency.
   
   The 1950s were a difficult time in which the United States and the U.S.S.R came perilously close to war on several occasions. Wicker offers Eisenhower qualified praise for his foreign policy and for his role as a "man of peace." Eisenhower ended the war in Korea and worked for disarmament even though, in Wicker's terms he "fumbled" on opportunity to secure a nuclear test-ban treaty late in his administration as a result of his decision to authorize a final U-2 flight over Russia. Wicker gives Eisenhower high praise for his handling of the Suez Crisis in 1956, which he describes as the President's finest hour, and for his calming influence after the U.S.S.R launched Sputnik in 1957, leading to panic among many Americans over our educational system and scientific and military readiness. Wicker faults Eisenhower for his engagin in covert warfare in Guatamala and Iran and he is vaguely critical of Eisenhower's role in precipitating what would become America's involvement in Vietnam.
   
   In domestic affairs, Wicker focuses almost entirely of Eisenhower's role in discrediting Senator Joseph McCarthy and in his actions regarding Civil Rights. Many writers besides Wicker are critical of Eisenhower for not being more agressive against McCarthy. But as Wicker shows, Eisenhower worked effectively to bring about McCarthy's demise, not the least of which work was in allowing him to self-destruct. Eisenhower's approach may well have been more effective and less divisive to the country than a more confrontational approach.
   
   Wicker also is highly critical of Eisenhower for his less than full support of the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education and for his failure to exercise the moral suasion both he and his office possessed to implement civil rights. Many admirers of Eisenhower have come to the same conclusion. Yet, Eisenhower used force to protect the rights of African American students in Little Rock, Arkansas in 1957. And Eisenhower's two immediate successors in the presidency were themselves slow to commit to the civil rights movement. A recent book by David Nichols, "A Matter of Justice: Eisenhower and the Civil Rights Revolution" (2007) reassess in part Eisenhower's contributions behind the scenes to the cause of civil rights.
   
   The 1950s are sometimes regarded as a time of somnolescence and conformity in the United States and sometimes as a subject of sentimentalized nostalgia. Eisenhower had proven his ability as a leader during WW II and he served the nation well, even Wicker admits, as President during a difficult era. According to one of his advisers quoted by Wicker, Eisenhower's greatest strength was "in getting people to compromise divergent views without anyone's surrender of principle." (p. 138) In view of the never-ending tumult our country has undergone since the 1960s, one can do worse than the balance, sanity, and quietly effective leadership that characterized the presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower.
   
   Robin Friedman



5. "I like Ike." A statement that defined the political world of the 1950s. The popular leader of Allied forces in the European Theater during World War II received high approval ratings from the public throughout his presidency. This brief book, a part of The American Presidents series, provides a brief and readable glimpse of Ike's life and his presidency. The author is Tom Wicker, who originally achieved considerable visibility as a columnist with The New York Times.
   
   If you're like me, you might rather read D'Este's "Eisenhower," which takes almost 700 pages to text to bring his biography to the end of World War II. However, most people will not be interested in such a massive work, and the 140 page volume by Wicker is apt to prove more attractive to people.
   
   As with other volumes in the series, this one begins with the family background and Dwight Eisenhower's early years. Some readers might be surprised to know that, when he went to West Point, he was a star football player (and see the incredible confrontation between Ike and his mates and Jim Thorpe and his in books such as 'Carlisle vs. Army"). Later, he began to work his way up the military hierarchy, by providing excellent staff support to leaders such as Generals Pershing, MacArthur and Marshall. When World War II broke out, he was not an especially visible figure. Soon, though, he rose to Allied command in North Africa and then in Europe. Other books describe this period in much more detail--and illustrate both his strengths and his weaknesses. After the War, he served in a number of capacities. In 1952, he began his quest for the presidency.
   
   The book does a nice job of showing how he won the nomination. Then, his major challenges: the War in Korea, Quemoy and Matsu, the U-2 shoot down, Dienbienphu and Vietnam, Senator McCarthy, economic slowdowns, physical ailments (heart attack and stroke), the space race, relations with the Soviet Union, and so on and so on. Once thought of as a rather amiable cipher as president, historians and political scientists more recently have reappraised his presidency. I am not sure that that reappraisal always manifests itself in Wicker's book.
   
   Then, the transition as of the election of 1960. The relationship between Eisenhower and Nixon is played out reasonably well in this book. Then, after the e3lection, Eisenhower's retirement from public service and his later years.
   
   As a brief biography, this works pretty well. For those wanting to get a sense of Dwight Eisenhower in a compact book, this is pretty good.

5 comments about Power and the Idealists: Or, the Passion of Joschka Fischer and Its Aftermath.

1. This book is about idealists on the political Left, with a focus on Germany's Joschka Fischer. In the first chapter, Berman shows that the late 1970s brought home to many people just what the New Left had become: it had supported what became genocide in Cambodia and (roughly speaking) National Socialist policies by Arabs in the Levant. These were exactly the policies the Left had opposed so strongly in the 1930s and 1940s.
   
   Of course, in the case of Zionism, the Left had switched sides in the past, supporting it in the early part of the twentieth century, opposing it in the 1920s and 1930s, supporting it in the 1940s, and opposing it once again in the 1950s and 1960s. But that's not the point. The Left had generally been against right-wing irredentism, racism, and genocide in the past. And some of it clearly went over to it in the 1970s.
   
   In the next chapter, the author discusses some of the ideas of the European Left that "crossed the ocean," such as the Kyoto Protocols and the International Criminal Court. During the Clinton administration, Berman explains that there was an appearance of cooperation between the United States and Europe on these issues. But that fell apart in the present Bush administration. Next, Berman discusses a little about the American Left and the Muslim world. Do those who plead for human rights in the Muslim world get support from American Left? Not all that much.
   
   We also discover how much support such rights get in Europe, and in France. How many on the Left in France preferred an American victory over Saddam Hussein to an American defeat?
   
   Berman indicates that the ideas of the "generation of 1968," which opposed the Vietnam war and intended to be activists in supporting human rights are not those of this generation. The activists of 1968 wanted to be interventionists. They wanted to oppose oppression. But the ideas of today, on both the Left and Right, are a little different.
   
   I think this is a fascinating book, and I recommend it.



2. Paul Berman has written two interesting books in recent years. The first was the excellent TERROR AND LIBERALISM which looked at jihadic violence, its underpinnings in Islamic and Western philosophy and history, and the possibility of a humane, hawkish, antitotalitarian, liberal response to it. POWER AND THE IDEALISTS is an equally engrossing read that looks at the generation of 1968 (anti-Vietnam, anti-authority, anti-capitalist, very often anti-American protesters) and their evolution over time, especially in reaction to Entebbe, Kosovo, and 9/11. Suprisingly, many 1968ers evolved quite far. The emphasis here is on Germany, as the central figure under consideration is former German foreign minister and Green leader Joshka Fischer. This is an excellent, journalistic account of many arguments very pressing in today's political environment. All arguments are treated fairly and in more than just a single dimension.



3. Paul Berman is an unusually fair minded observer of the world political scene. That allows him to do justice both to the idealism of the generation that made the 1968 student "revolutions" and its failings. He charts the development of 1968 street fighter Joschka Fischer to becoming the first Green to be a Minister in the German government. Fischer endorsed NATO's intervention in Kosovo against all his earlier principles. Yet he refused to endorse the intervention in Iraq.
   
   Dr.Bernard Kouchner,founder of Doctors Without Borders and another of the '68 radicals,did approve the Iraq intervention, although not how it was carried out. Why did they differ?
   
   Berman tells us about many of the characters of the generation of '68, with the whole history of those times and subsequent developments converging on the Iraq question. I wish Fischer's warning that Iraq was a terrorist trap for America had received more consideration from the author.
   
   For all those who were young in '68 this book is a must-read. And for other generations too it is highly instructive. Warm, witty and with plenty of narrative, it's compulsive reading whether you agree with its implications or not.



4. In Berman's lucid and wonderfully written account, they were people who were animated by the burning question: Would they have been collaborators or resisters in Nazi Germany and Occupied Europe? They were a generation for whom the question of totalitarianism (be it the totalitarianism that "had survived Nazism" in Western society or the totalitarianism that threatened to murder the Vietnamese Boat People) was a real issue; an issue of foreign policy. A Big Issue, rather than a rhetorical gesture to show that our cause is just. It is not an accident that Jimmy Carter (influenced by the 68ers) established the office of the Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights; that Jimmy Carter "sent the Sixth Fleet into action scooping up the [Vietnamese] Boat People" (who were called such because a `68er who founded Doctors without Borders, Bernard Kouchner, rented a Boat for Vietnam to rescue the Vietnamese who were fleeing the Communists. Nor is it an accident that this same Kouchner became, under Mitterand, France's secretary of State for Humanitarian Action. A title that allowed him to send "humanitarian actions under the tricolor of France" into Africa.
   
   For this generation then, the question of Yugoslavia, was not a question of real politik, not a sideline question but a question of central importance. And it is not an accident that this generation (of people who were leaders of the world by then) united (finally and too late some might say but united) and chose to intervene in Yugoslavia on humanitarian grounds. Because "everyone had the right to D-Day".
   
   But it was also this generation that, by and large, failed to ask the right questions about Iraq. For no matter how one feels about the Iraq war (and Berman points out some of the more lucid arguments for and against military intervention in Iraq) it is hard to deny that the generation of '68 did not make the humanitarian argument for war against Saddam as it had done for war against Milosevic. It was this generation that kept silent while the "bad US government" went to war for the wrong reasons (with disastrous results for this generation and perhaps the world).
   
   It is a generation not without its flaws then; a genuinely human generation. And this is the beautifully-written story about who they were and are and what, in the end, it was all about.
   
   I strongly recommend this book.



5. There are few books in English on contemporary European affairs; search for "Joschka Fischer" in Amazon.Com, and you'll find only this book in English (another, Joschka Fischer and the Making of the Berlin Republic: An Alternative History of Postwar Germany is not yet available).
   
   While books about continental politics are few and far between, "Power and the Idealists" belong to another genre, of which there are many recent specimens. These are about the challenges of the Left in the modern world: with the collapse of the USSR -even before it - traditional leftist found themselves in a new world, where traditional orientations and slogans (Imperialism, Colonialism) seem increasingly irrelevant, and new realities and concepts (Islamism, Humanitarian Intervention) make some of them into uncomfortable bedfellows of those who "only yesterday" were the enemies - the US, Capitalists, NATO.
   
   Various books deal with different Leftists or former leftists and these kinds of challenges: James Naughtie's The Accidental American is about Tony Blair and his strange alliance with Bush. Nick Cohen's What's Left? argues that the Left is lost in cynicism and moral relativism. The early parts of George Packer's The Assassins' Gate: America in Iraq deal with Leftist illusions and disillusions past and present; From the Neo-Conservatives to the Liberal Hawks. Paul Berman's is probably the most compelling of the bunch.
   
   Berman's heroes, like the subjects of these other books, follow roughly the same path, typified by Joschka Fischer's. They start as Leftist radicals (to a greater or lesser extent), with extreme and not always coherent views of justice and goodness and equality. They want to transform society, they dream of resistance to Fascism, Imperialism, and their earthly champion, America. They adore Che Guevara, and while they do not support the violence of the Baader Meinhoff gang, they are not too concerned with it; All are fighting the good fight, after all, even if some are misguided, even terribly misguided, in how they do it. Fischer even went as far as beating a policeman, and getting caught on camera, leading to a scandal when the pictures surfaced some thirty years later.
   
   Somewhere along the line comes disillusionment. For Fischer, it was Entebbe, when Palestinian terrorists and their German allies not only abducted a plane and threatened to kill its passengers; they also divided them into Jews and Gentiles, releasing the latter while keeping the former captive. For a Leftist like Fischer, the echoes of the Holocaust were too eerie.
   
   Disillusionment had many triggers. For some it was the events in Vietnam, where the North Vietnamese, after vanquishing America, turned against their own people in massacres far worse than My Lai. It might have been watching Che Guevara a little bit too close for comfort; the revolutionary hero was far from what most Leftists made of him.
   
   The realization that the West was not invariably wrong, and that its power could be used for good was dramatic. Berman's heroes (he calls them the 68ers, for a generation shaped by the events of the late 60s and early 70s), as they grew and as some of them came to power, brought their ideals into actions, including military action. They wanted to defend human rights and prevent atrocities, by gunpoint if necessary. The Kosovo War had arguably been their finest hour - a humanitarian effort in which NATO soldiers fought not to further traditional realpolitik ends, but to stop the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo.
   
   ... And the war came. The Iraq war confronted the 68ers with a dilemma. They liked George W. Bush not one bit. Everything about the vulgar American rubbed them the wrong way. They disliked and distrusted his justification for war. But they abhorred Saddam Hussein. Thus the Iraq War saw a fault line in the 68 generation, when the unity of this New Left was shattered: some of them supported the US administrations -while others tried to find a path that would allow them to oppose the war and the administration without supporting its enemies.
   
   Berman presents the failure of the Iraq adventure as a consequence of the supreme incompetence of the American administration, and of lack of support from European nation, especially France (p.257). Nowhere does Berman consider the possibility that the task was too onerous. The Law of Unintentional Consequences has no place in Berman's account, nor does he have any doubt of the capacity of an effective policy to solve Iraq's (and the world's) problems. Berman and his heroes have had many disillusions, but they were not disillusioned of the power of technocracy. The idea that there may be limits to the statist policies doesn't seem to have crossed Berman's mind.
   
   A related problem: the treatment of Islam. The chapter of Islam is viewed through the writing of Azar Nafisi (Reading Lolita in Tehran: A Memoir in Books) and of course Kanan Makiya (author of the anti-Baath Republic of Fear: The Politics of Modern Iraq, Updated Edition; No book of this genre is complete without him). When Berman looks at extreme Islam, all he sees is a Totalitarian system, a western ideology in eastern clothing. I think this is an important insight, but a very partial one; there's something seriously wrong with a discussion of radical Islam that pays more attention to Hannah Arendt then to the prophet Muhammad.
   
   This is a general problem with Berman's humanitarians: how little these would be saviors know about the world they would save! Berman's account of Western thought and politics is deep and insightful; His commentary on the rest of the world is shallow and clichéd.
   
   And Berman hardly reflects on how familiar the Interventionist Left seems to those who remember the past. Berman's history starts in the 1940s, but the Leftist quest reminds one of a much older tradition, an earlier generation of Westerners who sought to save the rest of humanity. "Take up the White Man's burden" Kipling wrote in 1899 "The Savage Wars of Peace/Fill Full the Mouth of Famine/and bid the sickness cease ... "
   
   And yet... the Kosovo War did stop the ethnic cleansing of its Muslim population, and did dispose of Slobodan Milosevic, didn't it? And so, perhaps...?

5 comments about Andrew Jackson: Symbol for an Age (Galaxy Books).

1. As one generation describes slices of history to another, the events and personalities are altered in the process. Ward shows how Jackson's persona emerged in the transfer of historical knowledge from one generation to the next.
   In earning a national reputation as a war hero in the Battle of New Orleans, Jackson credited God with the victory and saw himself as a chosen instrument in His hands.
   A city-wide religious ceremony was held in the aftermath of that victory. All New Orleans acknowledged humble thanksgiving to God for the successful defense of the city.
   Riding the crest of this military popularity Jackson was elected president and the masses who turned out for his inaugural events were unlike any other before him. His administration was a shift from the elite to a populous approach to government. Ward includes helpful anecdotes to keep the readers abreast of some of the details of the time and places covered.



2. My first impression of this book was that it was nothing more than rampant ramblings of senseless quibble. Once the reader understands that this is a psychoanalytical, socio-political, cultural and philosophical study of Andrew Jackson the man, versus the times he endured, it is truly an insightful work.
   Touted as a man of iron-will, determination and unbound democratic principles, Jackson was a man for the ages which he represented.
   Praised for his efforts in the Florida Indian battles and the Battle of New Orleans against the British (and denounced by some for his disregard for orders), he nonetheless came out on top of the situation for the people and his country.
   He exhibited qualities of the self-made man and this is what swayed his popularity. Jackson started from humble beginnings, and with his resolve and perceptiveness, became not only President of the United States for two terms, but was also looked up to as a hero with no self-limitations.



3. Reading this I am reminded of people you meet that talk just to hear themselves speak this book reminded me of those people. From the start you are engulfed in babble about Andrew Jackson. Even though this is considered a scholarly book, I feel that the writer just typed and typed and used words and sentences that were difficult to understand just to make himself sound important and intelligent. After reading this book I did not have a grasp on who Andrew Jackson was, but I did however know that I did not like the author.



4. This quite readable book (if you read scholarly books) is possibly more relevant today than when it was written (in 1953). The author demonstrates how the concepts of Nature, God, and Will combined in the American imagination to provide the basis for beliefs about ourselves as a nation and our place in the world. The author doesn't explicitly draw a line from then-to-now (or even then-to-1953), but you will be able to draw that line yourself if you are an observer of American culture. If you are interested in current politics or the state of the nation today, read this book; you will understand more about how we got to where we are. It is not a biography of Andrew Jackson, but rather a carefully drawn picture of his times, using him, as the titles says, as a "symbol" for his era.



5. American democratic politics, as can be easily seen in this year's presidential nominating processes, has always been encumbered with symbols. That fact is hardly new or news. What is news is that today's seemingly modern notion of proper electoral technique has a fairly ancient pedigree. Although Parson Weems did more than his share to establish the iconic figure of George Washington, arguably the subject of this work, Andrew Jackson, really was the first president to get the full public relations `spin' treatment that we take as a matter of course in today's politics.
   
   The present volume builds the case for Jackson symbolic virtues at a time when America, after a series of nasty encounters with the British, notably the War of 1812, developed an inward look westward and away from the `degeneracy' of the seaboard. If Jackson did not fit the bill to a tee then his agents, paid or otherwise, filled in the blanks. First place in those efforts goes to highlighting his military prowess and soldierly concerns in defeating (to what real purpose no one knows since the war was over by this time) against the British at the tail end of the War of 1812 at the Battle of New Orleans.
   
   From there it was fairly simple to make him a man of the' people'. In this case the people being empathically not the residents of the eastern seaboard but the `fresh' yeomanry of the Westward trek. You know- the ones who exhibited all the plebian virtues as solid tillers of the soil, holders of folk wisdom against the effete nabobs of the cities and the true patriots of rising American agricultural capitalism. The author builds his case by using a series of fairly common references beginning his work with an analysis of a Jackson poetic tribute `The Hunters of Kentucky' and dissects that bit of work to see how it fit into the scheme of making Jackson the first "people's" president. All the other tributes and, at the end eulogies, then fall into place.
   
   If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery then his Whig opponents do that by learning from his handlers by the time of the `Tippecanoe' Harrison campaign of 1840. And from there we are off to the races. Note this- as if to reinforce the argument presented by the book- can anyone today deny that that myth built so long ago still, with the exception of a dent caused by his savagery against the Native Americans, stands as the way he is thought of in the American pantheon? The Democrats continue their traditional Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinners without blushing.

5 comments about Bearing the Cross: Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (Perennial Classics).

1. This Pulitzer Prize winning biography proves to be superbly reseached and well written (although bit dry for some) account of the great civil right leader. However, the book seem to be geared around his public life and his involvment with the Civil Rights movement of SCLC. Although this part of his life seem to be well documented and covered, the book don't tell us much about King's private life, his relationship with his family, or his sexual indiscretions and his own relationship on the personal level with so many of his fellowers, friends and rivials.

   But its a superb coverage of King's Civil Rights involvement and actually tell a sad story of man who was definitely over reaching the limits of his own personal, mental and physical endurance. A good example would be how MLK's venture in the Vietnam War which definitely overextended his reach when so much still needed to be done on the Civil Rights front. This distraction also cost him friends and allies who could have helped him on that issue which should have been the main focus of MLK. I guess he lost focus in the end. I am bit surprised that the book didn't make any commentary on the legacy of MLK or anything like that. The book stopped with his death which almost sound like a blessing for MLK who seem at the end of his life, an unhappy man, totally stress out and overwhelmed by his burdens.

   But as biography goes, I thought this book was honest and interesting picture of a man. And thats good in my opinion, MLK was a man with combination of greatness and flaw that the book clearly points out with a great deal of objectivity. I thought it was kind of an ironic statement when the author stated that the only people who really knew MLK were his closest friends and the FBI who wiretapped him.

   I should note that this may not be an ideal chocie for first time reader of MLK since there are overwhelming amount of material in this book which may create an information overload for some people.

   My paperback book didn't have any photos which I thought to be bit strange. Book like this need photos. But overall, this is the best biography I have read on MLK regarding his public life. Will there ever be one of his private life??




2. BEARING THE CROSS is a very detailed book on the life and times of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., American hero, civil rights activist, preacher and admirer of Ghandi and his nonviolent approach to social change. King came to the forefront of the mid-century civil rights movement when Rosa Parks, a seamstress, refused to move from her seat on a bus in Montgomery, Alabama. It wasn't the first time a black woman had been tossed out of her seat in the Black section of the bus when a white customer needed a seat. Along with the removal usually went insults and threats and Ms. Parks just wasn't having it that time. The local activists asked King, a new preacher at Dexter Baptist Church, if he would take on the responsibility. Reluctantly, he agreed to do so and thus began the legend of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

   Over the years, Dr. King has taken on an almost mythical position in the civil rights movement. Those who were present at the time find themselves wondering if the Dr. King they remember is the same man that is now raised in the American consciousness. He is frequently given a saintly aura that leads children reading about him in history books to believe there was never anyone like him before and that there can never be another like him again. David J. Garrow dispels those myths as he lets us in on the life of the man who led this country to reconsider its segregationist behavior. We see Dr. King when he is depressed and feeling unworthy of his position in the movement, when he is being a chauvinist about his wife, those moments when he smokes and drinks too much and Garrow gives credence to the rampant rumors that he had women in his life other than Coretta.

   In addition to the very humanness of King, we also get to witness the foibles of the United States as it dealt with its Black citizens. We get to know the actions of three presidents of the United States, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson, as they vacillated about the civil rights movement. None of them wanted to upset the Southern voting population so they tended to send mixed messages: on one hand they knew that Blacks were being treated unfairly but to offer help through legislation, federal troop protection for besieged nonviolent marchers or verbal support for the movement was beyond where they wanted to go. The levels to which the FBI stooped to discredit King are by themselves, phenomenal. Each of the presidents was definitely aware that King's rights as a citizen of this country were being abused as his home, his phones, his motels, hotels and friends were wiretapped. The agency also used the illegally acquired information to terrorize and blackmail Dr. King. Not one of them objected to this horrendous invasion of privacy.

   BEARING THE CROSS is a definite must read for every caring citizen of the United States who has a desire to understand and appreciate the civil rights movement, the life and times of Dr. King and the role that the country has played in keeping some of its citizens in bondage. I would also recommend it as a reference book for the civil rights movement.

   Reviewed by alice Holman
   of the RAWSISTAZ Reviewers




3. You must have to really work to turn a life so packed full of meaning and world-changing events into a snoozer of a book. I have no idea how "Bearing the Cross" received a Pulitzer Prize -- certainly not on the basis of its prose. While the author undoubtedly did an enormous amount of research, the book reads like a high school history essay; i.e. a monotonously linear string of events -- "Then King did this; then he did that; then they had an SCLC meeting; blah, blah, blah...". The book virtually no character development; in fact everyone but King are merely names on a page. It took a herculean effort to slog through the 600+ pages, but perhaps the book wasn't meant to be read straight through. Maybe this is one of those research tomes meant for reference by historians -- check out the ample index for the names, places and events you're interested in at the moment and read only snippets at a sitting.
   
   Despite being far too long, the book has a couple major oversights. First, there are no photographs whatsoever -- for someone as widely seen on TV and newspapers as King, couldn't they have sprung for a few pages showing historical events? Second, the book abruptly ends with the assassination -- when King dies so does the book -- nothing on the national reaction to his death, nothing on Ray or the motivation for/theories around the killing.
   
   In sum, great research, poor writing. Perhaps Taylor Branch can edit his multi-volume set into a readable single-volume account. Until then, look elsewhere for a good King biography.



4. Certainly it was the definitive biography; although there was something troubling about his use of illegally gathered materials that the FBI collected to damn Martin, the picture painted is a real picture of a real life. Certainly Martin was always an inspiration to me, and I felt that I knew him better as a man after this biography, more so than after earlier ones.
   
   My one major criticism is that Garrow uses a possibly mythical "night in the kitchen" as the spiritual turning point for Martin--I think it more likely that if any night mattered it was that in a jail, perhaps Selma. (Though I don't accept the idea that he chickened out for the Selma-Montgomery march--he had no reason to expect the brutal response that occurred.) Because a night in jail can really make you think about what your values are, whether it is worth suffering for truth, and whether others really WANT the truth. One of the things I think I learned from Martin is that people may not be ready for the truth now, but it is only a matter of time.
   
   I also learned something that seems obvious, but wasn't to many of us. It is one thing to violate an unjust law publicly--and let other people see you unjustly punished. It is another to violate an unjust law privately, for even if you are in the right, when you are punished, this injustice is unlikely to draw the outrage of the citizenry, and you find yourself alone.
   
   Of course, at the time that Martin and the SCLC were active, the courts were basically on our side--the side of the little guy. Now, as far as I can see, the law really only exists to protect large companies. Why, if Martin were to do this now, he'd be sued out of existence for "defaming" and "slandering" the good name of the great state of Alabama! If he couldn't "prove" that America really had given his people a blank check...why then, HE'D be in the wrong. And if he really let the law proceed in its own way, he'd have spent a lot more than one or two nights in jail, I can tell you that!
   
   And from Garrow's book, I believe he still would have done it. He wasn't the initiator, but when fate knocked on his door, he opened it up and invited fate in. And that should be an inspiration to us all. [9]



5. There are so many positive things to say about this comprehensive book on Dr. King and the civil rights movement. Garrow's research and story-telling are both outstanding, leading to a book that I couldn't put down and one that provided me with so much information.
   
   One reason I love the book is that I would neither call it an overly sympathetic nor critical portrayal of King. Garrow simply presents the facts in an easily understandable fashion, allowing the reader to make his/her own conclusions. Positive and negative aspects of King's personal life and movement leadership are pointed out; it's up to us to determine his legacy. And in my mind, his legacy is as strong as ever. King sacrificed himself to the cause, and not only in his premature death, but also in living a modest life with virtually no relaxation or leisure. And what he endured at the hands of the FBI just broke my heart.
   
   I was also impressed with the way King and the other movement leaders were humanized. Garrow didn't only list the facts about their achievements and tactical errors, but he also provided great insight into the lives of these men and women.
   
   Here are my two gripes that, in my mind, keep the book just a hair shy of 5 stars. One, I would have liked to have learned more about King the husband and father. I know he wasn't home much, but there was very little information about the type of father he was. And two, the book ends so abruptly. How did Coretta receive and react to the news? How did America react? What was the story behind the assassination? What was his funeral like? How did the movement proceed in the immediate aftermath of his murder? These were things I wanted to learn about.
   
   Despite that, I am so thrilled that I chose to read this book, and I would recommend it to anyone.

4 comments about Mrs. Ike: Portrait of a Marriage (Capital Classics).

1. Susan Eisenhower, granddaughter of President Eisenhower, has written a beautiful portrait of her grandmother and the strong marriage between the President and his First Lady.



2. Ike is one my historical favorites. I think his life testifies to the American dream - that a poor but enterprising boy from Kansas could achieve everlasting distinction as a Supreme Commander and President.

   In Mrs. Ike you learn about his life partner. It wasn't always a happy marriage, and it was certainly tested by tragedy (death of 3-year old son) and the rigors of nomadic military life, particularly during the disarmament era after WWI. Yet they hung in there and made the most of their life together.

   This is easy reading and a sometimes touching intimate portrait of a nice old-fashioned couple. They shared a 53-year marriage that took them from a difficult penny-pinching existence post WWI to great distinction and wealth later in life.

   For those interested in the Ike-Summersby question, I think this book puts another nail in that silly coffin. I particularly like the description of their relationship as like "Lou Grant and Mary Richards" (from the Mary Tyler Moore Show). Based on everything I've read they were more like affectionate father and daughter than lovers. Yet its painful to read how, after Ike's death in '69, Mamie had to endure rumors and scuttlebutt during the next decade, including a nutty divorce story by Harry Truman, now discredited and widely cited as perhaps testament to Truman's senility late in life.




3. I thought Margaret Truman cornered the market on good writing about parents. However, Susan Eisenhower has written a book of the same caliber. Being born in 1955, I only vaguely remember when DDE was President, though I certainly remember when Ike died in 1969. I had read so many unflattering things about Mamie, with the main exception being J.B. West's book of memoirs about being Chief Usher in the White House. Mamie is largely forgotten nowadays, particularly in light of the Kennedy administration that followed. What greater contrast than between the sixty-something Mamie and the thirty-something Jackie! After reading this book in all its details, one can better understand that Mamie considered herself first, last and always as an Army wife. It's easy for us to think of the period during and following WW II when Ike shot up through the ranks, with the perks that such a position brings. This book reminds us of the many, many years of their marriage with constant moving and not enough money to go around. Was it any wonder, then, that she would shop the newspapers for bargains while First Lady? I think we all hope that by our sixties we have a good working conception of who we are and what we want--this Mamie had in spades. She wouldn't change her hairdo or wardrobe for whims of fashion--she knew what worked for her. We also might be reminded that the position of First Lady is indeed unpaid and she is truly under no obligation to perform for us, the American public. In this book Susan Eisenhower reveals that in the eight years that Ike was President, Mamie only entered the Oval Office 4 times! Now, that's what I can call a separation of duties. We are also reminded that no President before or since had the foreign experience, including living in many foreign countries. They were a most cosmopolitan couple, perhaps masquerading as our grandparents! As West said, no couple looked more spit-and-polish than the Eisenhowers in their formality, and this included the Kennedys.

   This is a must read for any fan of 20th century American history.
   Many thanks to Ms. Eisenhower for her work.




4. I never knew much about Mamie Eisenhower other then she was a first lady until I read this biography it was well written and a fun read. Reading about Mamie's wealthy childhood and marrying Ike and becoming a army wife. Reading about all the places they've lived Denver, Panama, the Philippines, Europe, and the long separations from her husband. The sad death of their first child. I defiently recommend this book.

1 comments about The Disinherited: Journal of a Palestinian Exile (Mr Modern Reader PB-248).

1. The author writes his experience as a Palestinian refugee, gives the reader an idea of how Palestinians have been through numerous problems and crisis ever since their exodus from THEIR land in 1948 by the Zionists. He also gives a true picture of the Arab situation, how weak it is, and how Arabs even were against Palestinians themselves. The book is unique since the author combines some of his personal experience with stories, political history, and review. It's a must-read book, gives a clear picture to those who really want to know more about the issue in the Middle East.

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.