5 comments about The Other Man: John F. Kennedy Jr., Carolyn Bessette, and Me.

1. I have read Many Kennedy books,this being rather different.I found by reading it to be a man who was in love with a woman who found it difficult to commit.Its a Love story,the Authors love story and how he mended his broken heart.



2. Extremely interesting. It seems as though from Bergman's point of view that, Carolyn led a very tortued life. She was still having sex with Bergman for almost 3 years while she was married to JFK, JR. She seemed like a terribly unhappy person. It's a must read for Kennedy watchers! I highly reccomend it!



3. I ordered the book for three dollars and when it arrived, I couldn't put it down. I stayed up all night reading it until the end.
   
   I don't think Michael sold her out, not at all and I think he was right when he said that there was nothing for her to defend. She was a real woman, more beautiful and privileged than most but she was authentically kind, incredibly smart, funny, and she meowed when she loved you. It doesn't get any better than that, imo. It was so obvious how much he loved her, still loves her. How much he admired her and credited her for all she had done for him, made me cry. To most of the public, she had an affair, if true, I say "yes", and they are all indignant about it. To me the issue is more why? Did she really think she had made a mistake marrying JFK,Jr.? It happens all the time. Why are we so quick to think she couldn't have felt that way just because he was JFK,Jr.?
   
   Who realy was the "other man", Michael or JFK? Michael knew her years before she met JFK. I say JFK was the other man.
   
   
   I cared about JFK, Jr. and I am not saying he was a bad guy. I am saying that according to Michael's book, none of them were bad guys.
   
   My only complaint is when the end of the book came and Michael had learned that her plane was missing and shortly after that she was dead, he seemed to hold back much more than in the rest of the book. He barely wrote about how he felt, just more who he called and what he did. That is somewhat understandable considering he must have been in utter shock and despair but I wanted more. The end of the book seemed abrupt and a bit contrived, probably in part due to his impending fatherhood. Again, somewhat understandable but when he wrote that he "had" loved Carolyn, I took offense. To me when you love, you love forever regardless of other loves. That is what Carolyn wanted.



4. After reading this book I am still confused about the author's intent. On the book cover's back flap he states, "Above all, The Other Man is a testament to the enduring power of love and a story about painful choices we make with our all-too-human hearts." I must agree with the part about painful choices because he made some painful ones when he agreed to be the other man. Why would he try to compete with John Kennedy Jr.?
   
   I don't agree with him stating that this book is a testament of love. If so, why did he paint Carolyn Bessette Kennedy so negatively? This book trashes her image, character and morals. Michael Bergin tells of lustful sex, drugs, infidelity, lies and a possible abortion. Yes, it is his personal story of a season in his life and he has a right to tell it, but don't mislead the readers.
   
   Despite my feeling mislead and still questioning his intent, overall the book was well put together. The book contains many full page photos, some of which validate that he did in fact know Carolyn and did some modeling.
   
   If you are a true fan of Carolyn and/or John Kennedy Jr. this book is not for you. If you are one to have a curious nature about the lives of the above mentioned people then you will enjoy this book.



5. I remember when this book first came out and actually wanted to go pick it up. But i forgot and never got around to it. Here i am a few years after the books release and then one day Michael Bergin for some strange reason popped into my head so i decided to type in his name in on AMZ, just to see what was available in his catalog. Of course the 1st thing 2 pop up was the book & right then & there i realized that i should finally pick this up. I have the hard copy and i absolutely love it. I think Michael writes really well. Its nothing ground breaking & it's not going 2 win any Pulitzer Prize awards but it's a good book. He is very honest & candid with his relationship. I know a lot of reviews really enjoyed trashing him & just bashing him for no apparent reason. He dated the woman and has the total right to publish this book. Yes of course he got paid for writing the book but I am sure that was not his 100% reason for doing so. I feel awful that he had to go out and promote this book & get slammed by many of the people interviewing him for publishing his experience & relationship. I am sure deep down inside he probably just wanted to cry after all the negative press he received. He wrote this book & promoted it in a way defend her honor & to show "What would have happened if she was with Michael". It proposes the question "Would JFK Jr. & Carolyn still be alive if she was still with Michael"? I am sure not everything is word for word because nobody has perfect memory. There's always 3 points of view for any story and this was his. I do believe Carolyn was secretly ashamed of him because he was a door man when they initially met. I don't like the way she treated him and this was a story of a very average girl who decided to choose between being financially stable, rather then being with someone who she might have had more fun with. I remember Michael back in the 90's when he was becoming a big star. Of course fashion related things on TV have so much more exposure and dedication now then they did back then. So i heard about Michael here & there and saw his ads in New York. Of course I found Michael to be interesting & was fascinated by him. I mean how can you not be? Of course I don't have a fascination for every model. You need to have that certain something to really spark my interest. Michael is really down to earth & doesn't sugar coat anything in the book. He is also very honest that he used drugs in the beginning of the book. I feel like he wasted his time with Carolyn because i really don't see her BEAUTY at all. She is a very below average type of woman in society. But then again we always see beautiful people date unattractive people. That's how it goes. She really was down right below average. I look at her over & over and I just DO NOT GET IT!!!! Her beauty is something I do not understand at all & she needs a tan.
   
   Also people on here BASHED this book a lot and some of them didnt even read the book. I understand you want to voice your opinion which is fine. On another note Camelot was not perfect & it never will be. Some bashers just couldnt handle what they thought was paradise actually had FLAWS!! JFK Jr. & Carolyn were anything but saints. Then again nobodies an angel anymore. Don't judge from what you see externally because it's usually just a really good mask. You never know what lies behind closed doors. Pick this book up i know you will enjoy it.

3 comments about The Gentleman From New York: Daniel Patrick Moynihan -- A Biography.

1. Godfrey Hodgson, the author of this new biography of Daniel Patrick Moynihan, is admittedly a long-standing, close friend of his subject. This is at once the major strength and major weakness of this portrait of the senior Senator from New York. On the one hand, Hodgson has enjoyed unprecedented access to Moynihan in writing this book, which stops just short of being an official biography, making the book extremely revealing. Yet as an intimate of Moynihan's, the author cannot seem to achieve the distance and perspective which objectivity demands.

   Nonetheless, anyone interested in American or New York politics--or contemporary American history--is bound to find this an absorbing volume. After all, Moynihan's friends and associates have ranged from Averell Harriman to Henry Kissinger, from Arthur Goldberg to Richard Nixon, from Lyndon Johnson to Irving Kristol. He has exercised power in locales as varied as Albany, the U.S. Labor Department, the Nixon White House, the United Nations, New Delhi, and the U.S. Senate. Perhaps more than most political biographies, this is not just the story of one man but a political and intellectual history of the period in which his career flourished.

   Yet the author's biases are apparent. He strives mightily to reconcile and explain Moynihan's political inconsistencies, styling him at one point an "orthodox centrist liberal"--whatever that means. (It strikes me as an oxymoron.) He tries to find consistent strains in what seems to me to have been a political career characterized most of all by opportunism, if not outright caprice. He tries to explain away Moynihan's alcohol problem, while reporting that his staff employs the euphemism that the Senator is "with the Mexican ambassador" to explain that he is enjoying Tio Pepe, his favorite dry sherry. He justifies the Senator's long-standing feud with the liberal wing of his party in light of some early slights at the hands of liberal New Yorkers, referring at one point to "the authoritarian left," an interesting turn of phrase in the wake of Gingrich and Co.

   There are a number of obvious errors in the book. The author notes that in 1953, the Democrats had been out of power in New York State for 20 years, ignoring the fact that Democrat Herbert Lehman served as Governor through 1943, following FDR and Al Smith. He refers to the Comptroller General of the U.S. as a "Treasury official," although the C.G. is in charge of the U.S. General Accounting Office, a Congressional agency, not part of the Treasury Department. He suggests that President Clinton pledged that he would "vote for" the welfare reform legislation he eventually signed, missing the fact that America is not a parliamentary democracy.

   Despite the weaknesses, this is a beguiling biography, which is for the most part well written, and sure to captivate anyone with more than a passing interest in U.S. politics. I do not regret for a minute the time I spent reading it.




2. Godfrey Hodgson is a stand-out as a political historian of the second half of the twentieth century. If you read anything of his, read "World Turned Right Side Up" and "America In Our Time". Excellent, crisp writing accompanied by balanced judgment and comprehensive coverage are Hodgson's trademarks. This book was also well-put together.

   It is obvious that Hodgson really likes his subject and strives mightily to shore him up, very often without success. An appropriate title for this book could very well have been "Forrest Gump Goes to the Senate." Moynihan turns up at every critical juncture in the history of American social policy....to what purpose, it is never clear. In fact, his entire career leaves one with the feeling, why was he here? This book does nothing to lay these questions to rest and does much to raise them over and over again. Since Jefferson, other men of thought have entered public life to build coalitions and accomplish great things. In this book, Moynihan's first impulse always seems to be to drape himself in a toga and write a monograph. Rather than building alliances with others, he builds moats around himself with gratuitously acerbic commentary.

   By all means read the book. However, we can only hope that Hodgson will find a worthier subject for his next book.




3. I found this to be a fascinating biography, which a good author can accomplish regardless of what one thinks about the subject.

   Unlike another reviewer, I do not think that History will remember Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan in the same thoughts as the great American senators, alongside L.B.J. or Daniel Webster. As noted, Moynihan is not known as one of the Senate's great legislators. Critics regularly pointed to the fact that he was never (at least, in a leadership role) associated with any sweeping legislation, and his lofty presence made accommodation and the give and take of the Senate was difficult for him.

   This is a wonderful biography, which (except for the occasional errors pointed out by other reviewers) remains well written and an engrossing story. Biographer Godfrey Hodgson is admittedly a long-observing and apparently close friend of his subject. Some assert that this the major strength and major of this work while others assert that this is the major weakness of the biography. However, I remain unconvinced that for such an intimate portrait, complete (or even relative) objectivity is impossible to attain. It is hard to imagine a subject letting someone get close enough to do a thorough job who is not a friend. And as we too often see, without the at least tacit blessing of the subject, many people who can offer good insights will not cooperate.

   Moynihan was seldom predictable from an ideological perspective. Who else could work for both Kennedy and Nixon, and end up vilified by both liberals and conservatives? Yet, he was consistently respected by Senate colleagues in both parties. Few seriously question the fact that he had a massive intellect. This makes even more interesting the fact that Moynihan so assiduously sought verification and validation of positions which he had taken years before (evidenced by the satisfaction he took as seeing the NAACP - endorsed writings with regard to his decades-earlier call to alarm with regard to the state of the Black family). While many on the left decried some of his positions (the author seems to infer that the occasional, but continued reference to his comment re "benign neglect" was more painful that the stenosis which afflicted his spine), he remained a champion of those whom society left behind.

   All of those who are interested in American or New York politics will enjoy this read. However, I do not find it to be (nor do I think it tries to be) as much an in-depth tome on contemporary American history as another reviewer has suggested. For anyone looking for a study (and an attempted explanation) of an incredibly complex figure in 20th century American history, this is a fine addition to the mosaic.

   The book concludes with Moynihan's musings regarding what now means to be a liberal, and the role (and ability) of government vis a vis social problems. This is thought provoking and a challenge to many readers (including myself). What else can we expect from a biography?

5 comments about Ricochet: Confessions of a Gun Lobbyist.

1. I wasn't sure what I was going to get when I picked up "Ricochet" but it turned out to be a page turner.
   
   Richard Feldman is a skillful writer and an engaging story teller. His prose is easily approachable, passionate, and at the same time, avoids emotional extremes and bumper sticker slogans -- it's easy to see how he has been such a successful lobbiest.
   
   The "confessions" aren't ideological regrets, but rather the kiss-and-tell story of internecine warfare at one of America's largest and most powerful lobbying groups. Feldman presents the National Rifle Association to be not exactly the 800 lb gorilla many people had always assumed -- but rather a pack of 80 lb chimpanzees that sometimes work together towards a common goal but also spend a lot of time poking one another in the eyes.
   
   At the book's core, divergent factions in the NRA (one spearheaded by Feldman) disagree fundamentally on the best way to bring their cause forward -- the reader can decide which (if either) seems more practical. A fascinating read, whatever your position on guns. "Ricochet" seems to tell a universal tale -- one assumes that the very same types of arguments are going on in the back rooms of Greenpeace or any other lobbying group staffed by passionate and dedicated idealists.



2. Sorta like old home week for me...
   
   I'd quite agree you can't judge this book by its press or blog reviews. The press naturally picked up on Richard's criticism of NRA fundraising and expenditures, and the bloggers (except me, who refused to blog without reading it) reacted to that. Both made the book seem antigun, when it's very far from that. As I would have guessed, because I last saw the author at the private ceremony to dedicate the bronze of Harlon Carter: Harlon's family would not have singled him out for invitation unless he was respected by them.
   
   The book is exceptionally clearly written, and definitely a page turner. I think I took one break from reading its 300+ pages. If anyone wants to see what it's like to be a lobbyist, this is the book for them. Just one episode: at one point NY Gov. Mario Cuomo holds a tense meeting with the author and others, and tries to break the ice by deliberately sitting on a whoopee cushion. It didn't go over very well...



3. I found Ricochet: Confessions of a Gun Lobbyist a quick and interesting read. Richard Feldman provides a snapshot of a piece of history in the push and pull in the development of public policy in our pluralistic society. I gave this as a Christmas gift to my sons Lt. Scott Mayberry, USMC and Tim Mayberry so they could reflect on the excitment of life in the nation's capital.
   
   -- Richard Mayberry, McLean Virginia



4. I heard an interview with Mr. Feldman on the radio and this piqued my interest in reading the book. I am the owner of 2 Glocks, possess a concealed carry permit and am not an NRA member nor do I have any interest in joining the organization. I think reading the book confirmed my disdain with the lobbying organization as well as pointing out the weakness in the case made by many on the gun control side of the debate.
   
   If I am disappointed in any way with the book it is in the fact that Mr. Feldman should have, in my opinion, offered some insight into what he thinks would be tangible ways to bridge the gap between gun control advocates and gun enthusiasts. He spends a fair amount of time criticizing both sides but does not really touch on what he thinks would be more effective ways of squelching the conflict and doing more to keep guns out of the hands of those who are more likely to use them to commit acts of violence.
   
   For example: In my opinion, anyone who has been committed for a psychiatric evaluation or who takes prescription drugs for depression, bipolar disorder, etc. ought to be flagged by the Instacheck system and be required to pass a higher standard before being allowed to buy a firearm. It would not be an absolute barrier but a requirement to get more information. This might have prevented the shootings at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University (and others) which were carried out with legally bought weapons by disturbed young men with known psychiatric issues. I think a career gun industry advocate and lobbyist as Mr. Feldman ought to have offered his constructive opinion on issues such as this. It would have made Ricochet a more powerful work.



5. Title pretty much says it all. It has been clear to me for years as an NRA member that there were many fat cats running a supposedly non-profit organization solely to provide themselves w/ a good living, to the detriment of the rank and file membership and the avowed objective of preserving our constitutional rights [all of them, not just one as the media likes to portray.] This very entertaining read, in the form of the "I was there & this is the real story behind the events" should be required reading by everyone who cares about the future of the shooting sports worldwide. The truth hurts, but it also will set you free.

5 comments about Operation Solo: The FBI's Man in the Kremlin.

1. I am the son of the FBI agent Richard Hansen. I can attest to the secrecy of this operation by explaining how I learned about it. In 1997 I was looking through the new arrivals at my local library. I started leafing through this book and did a double take when I saw my dad's name. I checked out the book, rushed home, called my dad. Sure enough, he admitted that he was the agent in the book. It is an amazing testament to his fidelity that he did not speak of this operation(even after he retired), until this book came out.



2. This is an incredible story of a courageous couple of brothers and their wives who, while initially being drawn into Communism, were able to see the ugly truth behind it, and use their backgrounds to become the greatest spies in history. The book is written very well and as such it is hard to put down. Aside from a great story of intrigue, the book also offers a unique perspective on what really went on in the Kremlin as well as (parts of) the FBI.



3. The only thing more incredible than the story of Morris and Jack Childs, brothers who, from the early 1950s through the late 1970s, were FBI assets within the American Communist Party, and who were personal friends of Soviet leaders, is that Hollywood has yet to commit this to celluloid. Here were four brave Americans--to include their intrepid wives, Eva and Roz--who for decades risked their lives to report to the FBI (and from the Bureau to the President) on the thoughts and intentions of Soviet leaders. So trusted by their friends in the Soviet leadership, they served as secret Soviet emissaries to China and Cuba, reporting back to the Soviets the attitudes and positions of Mao and Castro. Thus successive U.S. presidents enjoyed unique intelligence on the thinking of not only the Soviets, but of the Chinese and the Cubans as well. The story told in OPERATION SOLO is spellbinding, frought with tension, occasionally leavened by the earthy humor of its principal players. This is, in short, a terrific story about great Americans--hardworking FBI agents who shied away from the spotlight, and their courageous assets--that demands to be read or, someday, seen on screen.
   
   A couple of points about John Barron's book. It is well written overall and reads quickly. It is not without faults, however. (1) The story is sometimes interrupted to introduce fairly extensive citations of reports written or passed along by the Childs. Without greater historical context, though, these passages are somewhat sterile and dry. Someday, one hopes, a more detailed study will add historical material external to SOLO that would, along with insightful analysis, demonstrate the true value of the SOLO reporting (as another reviewer here has suggested). (2) The section that deals with Martin Luther King is disappointing. For one thing, Barron is historically inaccurate or incomplete when the author states that "No one could have been more sympathetic to King than the Kennedy brothers." See Robert Dallek's excellent book on JFK for a better treatment of the Kennedys' complex relationship with King. Barron also downplays King's true significance as a great civil rights leader in order to discuss Communist ties to his inner circle of advisors. Furthermore, in an egregious departure from journalistic objectivity, Barron appears to excuse FBI's excessive campaign against King, including the infamous hotel wiretaps, on the pretext that King's private behavior was "inconsistent with [that] of a Christian minister and moral exemplar."
   
   These misgivings aside, this is a truly amazing tale. Read the book and then amaze your friends in recounting the story. Are you listening, Hollywood?



4. Barron's prose is articulate and well-phrased without wandering into pedantic posturing. We rarely know his opinion of all the goings-on, and what events he describes! We are quickly lost in this real world of espionage and deception, thoughtfully recreated by an author who knows his business and tells it well. An exciting read.



5. This is a compelling story of high stakes espionage in the Cold War. The amazing thing is that it is not fiction--it is history. The understanding that the author has about espionage and the intelligence community is right on. If you love history and are interested in the spy game--this is the book for you.

3 comments about Mr. Ambassador: Warrior for Peace.

1. The memoir of Career Foreign Services Officer Edward J. Perkins, the first U.S. black ambassador to South Africa in 1986, comes to life in a hard-hitting memoir of politics and social change that will prove a 'must' for any seeking insights into South Africa under apartheid - and after. Perkins came from a cotton farm in segregated Louisiana to join forces with the elite Foreign Service, becoming the first black officer to ascend to director general. But even these many achievements would be superceded by his work in South Africa - and MR. AMBASSADOR: WARRIOR FOR PEACE tells it all.
   
   Diane C. Donovan
   California Bookwatch



2. This is a terrific book! Perkins is a Black American born in 1928, who became a diplomat in the Foreign Service, and was the US Ambassador to South Africa in the 1980s during apartheid. The first chapter describes life in rural segregated Louisiana and Arkansas in the 1930s. It is a moving account, the more so because it is so simply and straight-forwardly told. Anyone who wonders if we've made progress in race relations should read this chapter. Moving on we meet the people outside Perkins' family who mentored him, and see clearly the truth of his statement that "... none of us goes through life unassisted." Later we see him as a US Marine, learning Japanese and studying Asian philosophy. It is just inspiring.
   
   That's enough. Get the book; read it; and pass it on.



3. An account of a black man who truly pulled himself up by the bootstraps. He was raised on a cotton farm in segregated Louisiana by grandparents who could neither read nor write. He went on to get an education and ultimately enter the elite white Foreign Service. He was appointed as U.S. Ambassador four times: Liberia, South Africa, the United Nations, and Australia. A very well written book.

No comments about Lula of Brazil: The Story So Far.

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.

5 comments about Alexander Hamilton: A Biography.

1. The author of this book is so enamored of Hamilton that it completely blinds him to any faults Hamilton may have had. Furthermore, anyone who showed any opposition at all to anything Hamilton proposed is deemed either delusional or a traitor. His treatment of Jefferson and Adams is amazingly disrespectful. Even Washington comes accross as a feeble leader at times without the constant support and advice of his most trusted advisor Hamilton.

   As the book progresses, the bias gets worse and almost preachy.

   Shockingly, the famous duel with Aaron Burr gets only about 3 pages worth of description.....probably since it was not exactly a high point in his life.

   Avoid this book if you want a well-balanced biography.




2. Though this biography is about 25 years old now, it's one on Hamilton that I will not part with. Forrest McDonald has written many books on early colonial American history, on the Constitution and on the presidency of Washington and Jefferson. He is now a Distinguished University Professor at the University of Alabama. This biography is more substantive than Brookhiser's and Brookhiser, I believe, actually consulted with Forrest McDonald when he wrote his book on Hamilton. Our government sometimes consults McDonald on Constitutional issues. As to political affiliations, McDonald describes himself as "an unreconstructed Hamiltonian Federalist". (The federalist party doesn't exist anymore; the present day republican and democratic parties are both offshoots from the previously named democratic-republican party).
   
   I've written this review so many times, mainly because I think that this Hamilton's life deserves a careful study, particularly with regard to his work on getting the Constitution ratified and his work in the treasury department. I highly recommend Frederick Scott Oliver's Alexander Hamilton:an Essay on Union which I've reviewed previously and Knott's Alexander Hamilton and the persistence of myth. Oliver's book is really dated, going back to 1928, and is written from a British viewpoint. He was a Scottish lawyer, read by Lord Tweedsmuir/John Buchan, who unfortunately only wrote several other books; his biography on Hamilton, in my opinion, is beautiful. This biography is good too. I love the quotes from Pope that McDonald heads every chapter with. (Hamilton's favorite authors were Pope and Plutarch). Chapter 8 is entitled Funding and Assumption which deals primarily with Hamilton's solution to the huge debts the colonies owed other nations following the Revolution. Stephen Knott's suggests in his book that Hamilton's solution of setting up a sinking fund would have been a good solution to another huge debt that our Treasury Department had to deal with soon after, (I believe), Bush Sr.'s four years, yet Congress gave this suggestion little notice. What makes McDonald's bio a standout, I think, is the depth of material he provides in explaining what he did as Treasurer. He's also biased toward Hamilton which I think actually is a good thing and paints not so rosy a picture about Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, or Burr.
   
   I think this biography will stand the test of time because of its solid research from Hamilton's birth to his death; McDonald's biography is the most comprehensive and complete. (I haven't read the newer biographies yet; I do believe this one will remain the standard). I was particularly impressed with his treatment of Hamilton's youth and parentage. I'd like to give this book 5 stars, yet American politics and writers to some extent alarm me. If I could, I would give this book 4.5 stars, the 0.5 subtracted for my cautious misgivings stated previously, and, compared to Oliver's biography, Oliver really understands the characters of Hamilton, Jefferson and others, most accurately portrays them, which is what a biography should be. To McDonald's credit, his and Oliver's agree on many points. Highly recommended for serious students of American history and of this most notable, yet rarely noted founding father.



3. Forrest McDonald wrote this book out of a profound knowledge of the legal, financial, and economic environment of the world of late-colonial America that Alexander Hamilton came into, and of the early Republic, that he transformed. Hamilton was a brave soldier, an astute politician, an extremely talented administrator, a great lawyer and a man of extraordinary personal morality and honor. These characteristics were enough to vault him to the upper reaches of early American society. But his financial and economic program -- that rescued this new and foundering nation -- is the true basis of his greatness.
   
   Hamilton was a man of parts, not least of which was his technical mastery of the financial means to establish and maintain a sound currency and national credit. Apprenticed to a merchant at an early age, he quickly came to appreciate the mentally invigorating effects of the commercial life. He was naturally quick and, as in repudiation of his socially marginal origins, a rigorous adherent to morality and "gentlemanly" honor. His talents, hard work and charm bouyed him up, and he seized each new opportunity with both hands, for his ambition would not let him rest. McDonald tells the story of Hamilton's early years with vigor and interest, but it is clear that the thrust of this book is to elucidate his real accomplishment as Secretary of the Treasury. This was the funding and assumption of the debts that the just-formed United States had inherited, the taxes and tariffs to pay for these, and the financial mechanisms -- including the Bank and the sinking fund -- to create, as out of nothing (or less than nothing) a universal and sound currency, as well as a store of capital to fund businesses, which he felt must be the drivers of the economy.
   
   This book is fairly compact, but gives a good feel for Hamilton the man. If you want more in that line, then the current biography by Ron Chernow is where to look. But here you will learn what Hamilton did that no one else could have done, and that needed doing. Even his enemies -- Jefferson especially -- found, though they repudiated the man and his politics, that in the end they couldn't do without his works.



4. This biography focuses heavilty on Hamilton's fiscal policies, particularly in his role as Secretary of the Treasury. It is well written and relies heavily on primary sources. The book sometimes becomes heavy reading when McDonald disucsses some of Hamilton's more complex financial dealings.



5. McDonald seems to have set out to write a book emphasizing Hamilton's political and financial/administrative contributions to the new republic and that is what he did. There is relatively little on Hamilton's personal life. For that one must look elsewhere (to Ron Chernow for example). The book is largely successful at what it is trying to do and is very good on the finance/administrative areas. One would expect no less from McDonald. As his other works on constitutional history show, he is an expert on the political philosophy and thought of the time as well as the period's economic theories.
   
   The prose is crisp, direct and clear for the most part but perhaps not the most sprightly ever committed to paper. McDonald can certainly be serious and charming simultaneously as he was in his memoir of his life as a historian (Recovering the Past), but his tone in his more formal work is quite brisk and even heavy at times.
   
   I would downgrade the book somewhat for two reasons: First, as mentioned, it scants the personal life in favor of the ideas and actions. With Hamilton, however, the personal life and conduct were utterly intertwined with his political and physical fates, especially as he grew older and (it seems) both increasingly intemperate and fearful that he had not been accorded sufficient esteem by contemporaries and might not have achieved the degree of 18th century style fame that would cement his reputation for posterity. The duel, for example, is one of the dumbest things that a smart man ever did and was to my mind in large part caused by events in his personal life.
   Second, the book is quite partisan and even hagiographic occasionally. Most biographers sympathsize with their subjects and give them more than the benefit of the doubt; but, judging from the book, Hamilton seems to be in McDonald's all-time personal pantheon of historical heroes and it shows. This may be because McDonald appears to share in some part the distrust of popular democracy that gave rise to Hamilton's fear of government by "the mob." Whatever the reason, Hamilton is seldom portrayed as wrong or even in error.
   
   Overall this is a worthy book by a fine scholar of the period and is especially good at making clear Hamilton's financial systems and political ideas in the context of the times.

1 comments about Scheisshaus Luck: Surviving the Unspeakable in Auschwitz and Dora.

1. Let me first say I have read 100's of Holocaust survivor books so I do consier myself well educated in what happened in WWII.
   
   This book arrived in the advanced uncorrected proof for my review at 3pm. I read non-stop until 1:30am and finished the book.
   
   The story opens when an 18 yr old Pierre Berg, Gentile, non-Christian part of the French Resistance arrives at a friends home to visit just as the Gestapo arrives. He is asked for his "papers" and of course he has false ones so he is taken away also.
   
   What he indures in Auschwitz is very accurate to well documented eye witness accounts that I have read. His treatment was brutal. When reading this keep in mind it is being told in the language of an 18yr old. He wrote down his account right after the war when the memories were fresh. Now in 2008 Pierre is getting the word out in English before all who where there are gone.
   
   I was amazed at his strengh of spirit and will to live as he had the dead all around him. I cannot image doing some of the things he had to do. Picking up the dead, waking up with the dead, riding in a boxcar on top of mounds of dead bodies. But he kept on.
   
   During a long part of the story he meets up with an old classmate Hubert and they keep each other going.
   
   The punishment he got on his second day at Auschwitz after "pooping" aside the Block at night was horrific. I myself would not have survived that one act.
   
   He was in the wrong place at the wrong time in the beginning but as things play out he gets the lucky if you can call it breaks. He also had the advantage of speaking 4 languages and understanding more. Being well educated and quite smart he was able to pass himself off for different trades that he knew just enough to get by which in many cases saved his life.
   
   Pierre became a master at "organizing" This was what they called stealing things to survive. You had to do this or you die.
   
   I like the fact that when they write a German sentence they give you the translations, this makes for a much fuller understanding of what is going on.
   
   He lives through Drancy confinement, Auschwitz,the famous Death March out of Auschwitz, Dora, Ravensbruck, Living through the Russian liberation at Wustrow which alone was a miracle. I think we forget sometimes how hard it was for all after "liberation" to get back home when you are sick and starving and have nothing but your stinking rotted "pajama's" to wear.
   
   Now Pierre Lives in the USA and had worked 40 years as a machinist in the movie industry.
   
   This book is very well documented as to being historicaly correct. It is a fresh story being written by a non-Jew. I wept at what he had to go through, I thank God he made it and has shared his experience so that we never forget.
   
   Well Done. I would suggest this is for readers over 17yrs old due to the very graphic nature of the story.
   
   
   The book is quite graphic and the language is what it would have been at Auschwitz. They don't say will you please do this sir. Keep that in mind. I do not like a lot of bad language but this is HISTORY and this is how it was.
   
   The book is right up there with accounts like All But My Life and Elie Weisel's Night.

5 comments about The Che Guevara Myth and the Future of Liberty (Independent Studies in Political Economy).

1. First off, this is a very short book (79 pages). The first chapter deals with the life of Che Guevara. Che since his death has become a legend. The reality of his life are blood stained hands. Che executed a lot of people. This happened both during the Cuban Revolution and its aftermath. Che was not someone you would want your daughter or sister dating. He was a killer, but somehow his persona has assumed the legend of underdog and hero.
   
   The following two chapters talks on how Latin America has been mismanaged economically and politically since independence. Both the left and right have instituted statist economies in their countries. The rule of the strongman has corrupted the political system. Corruption and the lack of followed laws has also undermined the capitalistic system in Latin countries. Few countries (except for a brief time Argentina) have followed the course of capitalism. The result are very poor countries with a small elite controlling the resources. These chapters relate how following a capitalistic economy these countries would not be poor and mismanaged.
   
   The writing on these final two chapters are pretty heavy. This is not for everyone. The one chapter on Che was an enticement to read the following two chapters. That is why this book is not for everyone.



2. It shouldn't be too hard to find a book that is critical of a loser like Ernesto Guevara, but it is. This book finally counters much of the romantic clap-trap that exists about the murderous, anti-freedom, hate-filled hypocrite, but it's certainly not ideal. I'd like more info abot his life and his work and his "teachings" overall, but most of the more exhaustive biographies are stricly the aforementioned sentimental clap-trap. This book is a little too short and branches out into areas I'm not really interested in, but it gets 4 stars simply for being a good attempt and the FIRST attempt at honesty regarding this horrible man.



3. I wish the first chapter was expanded into a full-length critique of Che.



4. As a Latin-American, I very much enjoyed the book. Some of the ideas expressed were interesting and I agree with, some don't. But the main intention in buying the book was to learn more about "Che", and my surprise was that "Che" was not there. He was present in less than a third of the book, in a excessive "compressed" way, and it even wasn't the most interesting part of the book. It looked more as a "bait" to get more people into buying the book. As I said, is a good book, but if you are looking for "Che", he will not be there.



5. As other reviewers have pointed out, the book prominently displays Che on the cover but precious little information about his life. Che's influence and despotism could easily fill a large volume. This book was a disappointment in that it barely touches on such an important historical figure. I'm hoping a better treatment is in the works somewhere. The "Progressive" world needs to know that one of its major heroes was, in fact, a murderous maritinet - and a dismal failure as a human being.