4 comments about Flying High: Remembering Barry Goldwater.

1. I found this book written about my political hero, by one of my favorite observers of politics fun but to light. First of all large parts of the small book really don't have a lot to do with Mr Buckley's relationship with the Senator. That is probably my main take. I also feel that (many would say hoorah) that Mr.Buckley's famed sarcasm and "snobbery" were mainly missing. I certainly wouldn't want every political observer to write with his style of sarcasm (wit), namedropping elitism (lucky and talented enough to be where the action is). But watching, or reading him shred countless liberals was fun. Onto my feelings about the Senator. There has been quite a bit written about him in the last decade and much of it has brought him down to earth from his exalted place in my life. That is not to say he is not still my hero but the opportunities lost because he couldn't or wouldn't say no to the Phoenix Mafia lead me to wonder the big what if question. No he wouldn't have won in '64 but the defeat could have been much smaller and possibly set 1968 up for a change that would have been wonderful not only for the U.S. but the world instead we had to wait until 1980. Final word, at Amazon's price it's worth it and it will be an enjoyable 2 days. Next Pure Goldwater I'm hoping it's effect will be similar to Reagan's Diaries. Interesting point it's funny how the personal and political stock of both Goldwater and Reagan have risen in the eyes of all thinking liberals (that of course excludes the likes of Huffington etc).



2. Taking small snapshots, William F. Buckley, Jr., delivers a wonderful portrait of a pivotal time in American politics and journalism.
   
   From the 100 student activists who were part of the foundation to the modern conservative movement, to the oftentimes hilarious controversies caused by (wannabe) political insiders and adding new twists to key moments which may have faded from the pages of history, the 208 pages prove that richness is not only found in thick volumes.
   
   The friendship of Senator Barry Goldwater and Buckley, Jr., are found on each page, but this is a story of two extraordinary personalities who pushed away the clouds and reached to the blue sky, due to the realization that a revolution in political culture could be had over time by flying high.



3. The year was 1964 - President Kennedy had been martyred, and now-President Johnson looked unassailable. However, there was one man on the Conservative side who seemed willing to carry the flag, and seek to turn back the tide of Liberalism that was flowing out of Washington DC - Barry Goldwater, Au H2O. And there was one man who was always there, even if he wasn't the man the cameras were pointed at, Conservative author and thinker, William F. Buckley, Jr.
   
   This is a "what I saw at the revolution" type book. In a short, but informative narrative, Mr. Buckley takes us behind the scenes, showing who did what, and when, and why. I must admit to being largely ignorant of Barry Goldwater, but I found this book to be intriguing and informative, keeping me turning the pages and watching those heady days unfold.
   
   Overall, I found this to be a very interesting book. It is short and easy to read, and yet packs quite a wallop - there is no unnecessary detail or wasted verbiage here! If you are interested in Barry Goldwater and/or where the modern Conservative movement came from, then you should get this book. I think that it is probably the perfect Goldwater Revolution book, and I give it my highest recommendations.



4. I have enjoyed reading William Buckley through the years, whether it was his fiction with Blackford Oakes as the protagonist or his somewhat self-indulgent mini-autobiographies. His writing style is absolutely captivating.
   
   Flying High is a great read if you have any interest at all in the emergence of the modern day conservative movement. In light of the current political season and two candidates that are essentially trying to claim that they are moderate, or at the very least not on the extreme ends of the continuum as a liberal or a conservative, the story of conservatives not ashamed to identify themselves as such is somewhat refreshing.
   
   I am struck by the sheer force of character and the price that is paid to be a person of character, particularly in the world of rough and tumble politics. If you have never read anything about Goldwater, this would be a good start and you will no doubt want to read The Conscience of a Conservative, actually ghost written by Brent Bozell, though released under Goldwater's name.

5 comments about Muqtada: Muqtada al-Sadr, the Shia Revival, and the Struggle for Iraq.

1. If you will read just one book about the Iraq before and after the invasion, this is. Give valuable info about why was so rapid the develop of shia militias and shia political parties - and their rivalries. Shed light of the mistrust toward the US by the shia's poor of the south that were slaughtered under Saddam after the insurrection rise up against him. Many believing the 1991 coalition will intervene and help them.
   
   The actual ethnic cleansing - another actual not editorialized as such genocide in the hopeless international community watch - taking part in Iraq is covered sadly, pretty painful. Whith the corrupt government seeing as not legitimate puppets of the US, that are part of the sectarian clashes with their private army's/militias or self defense group's, sometimes dressed as police or army units.
   
   Finnaly, why and how so quickly Muqtada rise up is explain.



2. This is quite simply THE definitive book on the Iraqi Shia political movements. It is written by the best (and sometimes it seems only) reporter in Iraq. Its must-reading for anyone who wants to understand the real political situation in Iraq.



3. Patrick Cockburn's approximately 30 years of covering Iraq give him the institutional memory, historical perspective and varied sources to deliver a nuanced profile of Muqtada al-Sadr. Cockburn is not the type of journalist to hang around hotels hobnobbing with elites to get his stories, but is willing to risk his life.
   Cockburn shows that al-Sadr is more pragmatic than radical and that he only has partial control of the Mahdi Army which is less an army than several volunteer militias with varied agendas. The arrogance and brutality of Saddam Hussein and the Americans who overthrew him is also documented and how it allowed al-Sadr to gain power no matter how perilous his grip on it is.



4. Cockburn does a wonderful job using day to day interviews to paint a larger picture deserving of the many accolades he has received in the international press. Iraqi society, much more complex and modern than the American media ever paints, is a boiling cauldron fired by the legacy of Saddam, the sanctions, and now the US occupation.
   
   This book is for anyone who wants an understanding of the Iraqi resistance and Muqtada al-Sadr that goes beyond the moronic simplicity of White House press releases.



5. The author provides both a first hand account of the Shia poltical environment after the fall of Saddam's regime as well as a history of the unique and bitter relationship between the Shia and Saddam that is most interesting for westerners as the author explains not only the conflicts between the Shia and Sunni but also between the Shia themselves. The book is not intended to be a bio of Muqtada al-Sadr but to underline his role in the Shia political conflicts within Iraq today. The most interesting aspects of the book is the telling of how the Shia were punished and killed during Saddam regime particularly Sayyid Muqtada al-Sadr's father, Grand Ayatollah Mohammad Mohammad Sadeq al-Sadr. In summary yet informative detail, the author explains how the murder of Grand Ayatollah Mohammad Mohammad Sadeq al-Sadr caused a split among the Shia particularly those leaders that fled the country and then returned after Saddam's fall. The best example of this violent split is when Sayyid Abdul Majid al-Khoei returns to Iraq to assume a leadership role among the Shia but then is brutally murdered almost at Muqtada al-Sadr's door step. The slaughter of the Shia after the coalition stopped during Deset Storm, after encouraging an uprising, is well discussed with the bitterness it invoked along with the post Iraq war misunderstandings by the U.S. occupation most noted by Paul Bremmer. This is a very concise but well written educational look at the political situation in Iraq. My only criticism is that books in detail on the middle east should have a glossary of terms and a defined character list, for those less familar with middle east terms and titles, and I include myself, to assist the reader.

5 comments about Hard Call: The Art of Great Decisions.

1. Who else but the ageing Michael Caine should play John McCain in the movie he's continuously making of his life? And the aspiring Commander in Chief shows every sign of a strong desire to take us all to Afghanistan and beyond, namely to Iran.
   
   Let me say quickly that I enjoyed the narrative chapters of this book. Mark Salter writes good, straightforward action prose. Who wouldn't enjoy reading about the high points in the lives of people like Neil Armstrong, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and Robert Gould Shaw? But the sermons at the head of each section, on Awareness, Foresight, Timing, Confidence, etc. - whether McCain wrote any of them or merely sketched the notions for Salter to full in - reminded me way too much of Polonius's advice to his son in Hamlet, that is "full of high sentence, but a bit obtuse." I was also mildly disgusted by McCain's gratuitous attempts to link himself to the heroism of his various subjects. For example, you can be sure that when Neil sets foot on the moon, John will remind us that he was a prisoner of war at the time. The result is that despite all, this comes across as a campaign biography, and a sequel at that, to JFK's Profiles in Courage.
   
   Does it tell us something we need to know about Senator John McCain, the Republican candidate for President? I think it does. He's a man of little modesty, a man who respects inflexibility much more than the ability to adjust and evolve. Shakespeare wrote in Twelfth Night: "Some men are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them." McCain writes about his heroes as if they were all born with the virtues he values. Obviously most of us are hoping for a President of the second sort, someone who can achieve greatness. But John McCain seems by his own writing to be the third sort, a fairly ordinary earnest guy who has had prominence thrust upon him.



2. Bernie's review is great and I have voted for it. I am going to stop buying formula books that combine a politician's name with a staffer's library browsing. I was especially distressed to not find the world "intelligence" or its commercial equivalent, decision-support. There is nothing wrong with the content, but as someone who writes and reads broadly about intelligence and decision support under conditions of ambiguity, this book could not hold my attention. The small volume by David Boren, A Letter to America was for me much more satisfying.
   
   Ten other books I recommend:
   Blessed Unrest: How the Largest Movement in the World Came into Being and Why No One Saw It Coming
   The Tao of Democracy: Using Co-Intelligence to Create a World That Works for All
   The World Cafe: Shaping Our Futures Through Conversations That Matter
   The Cultural Creatives: How 50 Million People Are Changing the World
   Society's Breakthrough!: Releasing Essential Wisdom and Virtue in All the People
   Group Genius: The Creative Power of Collaboration
   The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid: Eradicating Poverty Through Profits (Wharton School Publishing Paperbacks)
   Collective Intelligence: Mankind's Emerging World in Cyberspace
   Collective Intelligence: Creating a Prosperous World at Peace



3. So good, I wanted to share with my four grandsons by sending each his own personal copy with a note from Grandpa.



4. McCain's book, moreso than that of other politicians, does give you a feel for how he would be as a president. His view of what is a hard call is very relevant.
   I do have a quibble in that early on he criticizes the faulty intelligence leading to the Iraq war, then closes the Niebuhr/Bonhoffer chapter under "Humility" with the suggestion they would possibly back the
   Iraq war today.
   But it does have a variety of history of an era that I lived through but did not pick up on during my childhood, and does give a view of the man.



5. This is an excellent book. One of the finest, most thought-provoking books I have read.

5 comments about Until Death Do Us Part: My Struggle to Reclaim Colombia.

1. This book reads not only as an autobiography, but also as a political testament from a truly courageous woman. No matter what your political leanings or philosophy may be, you have to be impressed with Betancourt's integrity and character. Reading this book has given me an interest into why Colombia is in the dire straits that it's in today.

   Ingrid Betancourt's quest for a peaceful, reformed Colombia may seem quixotic. But it is reassuring to know that there are politicians like her in the world. Let us hope that she will be freed unharmed so that she can again stand up for what Colombia needs today: peace, stability, progress, and social justice.




2. This book was awesome. I loved it. I could not put it down. The story was told in terms that everyone could understand. The book follows wonderfully.
   If you are looking for a book that deals with women's rights and the struggles that they must endure, this is a good one to pick. I had to read this book for a history of Latin American class. It really helped us as atudents understand the situation that Ms. Betancourt was facing in Columbia. As well as, understand some of the choices she made.
   As a female reader it stirred my emotions. I highly suggest ths book as an educational read, or just a for the fun of it read.



3. Ingrid Betancourt is a rare person -- who puts her courage, brains, and energy to work in an effort to improve her country.
   
   This is not a boring political bio. It's an exciting story of a great person who moves from one adventure to the next, eventually putting her life in great danger.
   
   And it happened. After this book was published, Betancourt ran for president of Colombia. She was kidnapped by gorillas and at this writing, is still being held hostage somewhere in the mountains of her beautiful country.
   
   Here's wishing Betancourt the best. You are an inspiration to me and to all who will read this book. I am eager to read your next book.



4. Que puedo decir, (What can I say)? We need more international pressure on this issue. Ingrid along with Luis Carlos Galan, who was assasinated in front of a large crowd of supporters in the late 80's in cold blood have been the only ones willing to step up to the plate. They grew some balls and went against the world on this issue. Yes, it's all about the $600 million dollar industry which ruins everything that is beautiful in Colombia. The main importer the United States, who has also turned a blind eye to their own U.S. citizens captured ( Howes, Stansell, and Gonsalves) in the Colombian jungle since 2003. Do I recommend this book? Heck yeah! Ingrid is one of those few people in life and the world that make the changes or at least start to make the changes that we want to see in the world. I must also mention she uncovered alot of high ranking politicians who were being paid under the table from the Narcs, so why wouldn't you want to read this book it's intriguing. May I also mention that there is a documentary on this women called, "The Disappearance of Ingrid Betancourt", & I believe the producers are Karin Hayes and Victoria Bruce. The producers have also won several international prizes for this just one simple lady you see on the cover of this book. Te admiro Ingrid Betancourt. Viva Colombia. Liberen a los Rehenes.



5. The Crying Game of Democracy
   Review of Ingrid Betancourt's memoir Until Death Do Us Part, My Struggle to Reclaim Colombia
   Author and politician Ingrid Betancourt's return to Colombia and involvement in politics was a selfless act of love. Unfortunately, her love and the magnitude of her offerings were not understood by her fellow countrymen. In her book Until Death Do Us Part, My Struggle to Reclaim Colombia (Harper Collins Publishers, Inc., 2002, 228pgs.) Betancourt's crusade, marked by being a woman in a male society, sets the tone for many of the difficulties she encountered along the way. Facing long separations from her children, barring by other politicians, frequent hostility of the press and threats against her and her family, she endured and overcame the obstacles one by one. Ingrid understood the price for her convictions. She embraced them and never let up the fight. This book is an amazing story of courage and her fight against corruption at the highest political levels.
   The childhood of Betancourt was not that of a typical Colombian. Born in Bogotá on December 25 1961. Betancourt's mom, Yolanda Pulecio is a former Miss Colombia, turned congress woman and social activist. Her father, Gabriel Betancourt, is a career diplomat who started as minister for the General Rojas Pinilla's dictatorship. The year she was born, her father was appointed to posts in Washington D.C. Later he was sent to Paris, and Bogotá (Rank). Although Ingrid spent a large part of her childhood in Paris, she collected a vast cultural background from the places she lived and her social interaction with the literary and political elite. According to her memoirs, their house was frequently visited by leading Colombian personalities such as Carlos Lleras, Misael Pastrana,Virgilio Barco. All former Presidents of Colombia, and intellectuals like writer Gabriel Garcia Marquez, poet Pablo Neruda and painter / sculptor Fernando Botero. All of the people who came in contact with her inspired her to love the arts and politics. Betancourt attended the Institut d'Etudes Politiques in Paris (known as Sciences Po), an elite higher education institute. After graduating, she married a fellow student, Fabrice and they had two children, Melanie and Lorenzo. Since her husband was in the French diplomatic service, they continued to live in various places.
   Until Death Do Us Part explains how Ingrid's passion for politics was born from listening to conversations her parents had with many of their prominent Colombian guests while in Paris. The discussions revolved around the troublesome situation of the country and the grim future they anticipated. Since Ingrid was too young to participate in these discussions, she frequently hid under their grand piano to listen. In her memoirs, Betancourt makes reference to the birth of her political vocation under the grand piano. "I often returned to my hiding place, under the piano, and sometimes emerge with my temples burning, my stomach in knots, ready to burst into tears-so awful truly terrifying, do I find my country's fate" (Betancourt). She recalls a desire ''to affect the destiny of Colombia." From this point on, her love for her countries people increased, even though she never shared in their suffering. Finally, Betancourt could stand it no longer; her heart ached to help Colombia. Betancourt makes a decision to leave her husband and children behind and "descend into the brutish world of Colombian politics" (Golden). She was determined to fight against corruption. During an interview, Betancourt told the Los Angeles Times, "Between the drug traffickers and the guerrillas, we have been made almost ashamed to be Colombian, and a country that is ashamed of itself is a country without a future. We have to reconstruct our hopes and dreams." Colombia mattered to Ingrid more than anything else and she wanted to restore the country's pride and the faith of the Colombian people.
   According to her memoir, Betancourt begins her political combat against corruption, aware of the political turmoil in Colombia. She has a strong desire to fight for what is right. Her weapons are honesty, truth and the strong desire to help Colombia to succeed. The murder of Luis Carlos Galán in August of 1989, a candidate for the Colombian Presidency running on an anti-drug-trafficking platform, was the straw that broke the camel's back. Ingrid returnes to Colombia and starts her political career with her first appointment at the Ministry of Finance. In her post, Betancourt determines how much "politicians lack in ideals and integrity and realizes that they are only interested in power and money" (Golden). Feeling like an outsider, but knowing "something has to be done", Betancourt decides to run for a seat in the senate. During her first campaign Ingrid and her staff distributed condoms, with the motto "I'll be like a condom against corruption." Betancourt has been elected as a representative confirming that the attention of enough Colombians had been captivated by this political novice.
   The road to a Congresswoman was not an easy one, according to the author. Like many countries, in spite of the rich natural resources and vast cultural offerings, Colombia finds itself prisoner of political and economic greed. The price paid in the currency of, what the politicians, drug lords, and the militia considers disposable lives. Committed to the political struggle, Betancourt shares her many adventures as she sets up her headquarters in a fixer upper mansion. This time to run for a seat in the legislature. Betancourt's message is heard by people in need of hope. The same message is quoted by Juan Forero of The New York Times ''Corruption is not abstract; it has a face, and it has a name and we have to say it,'' said Ms. Betancourt, who wears well-tailored business suits and appears a decade younger than her age. ''Corruption must be consciously confronted, and has to be on the conscience of all Colombians so that we cannot be manipulated.'' A powerful message, shared during the same interview, reassuring the Colombian people that she is on their side. She is willing to fight their biggest oppressor.
   After only after a week in office, Ingrid is invited by one of the most corrupt politicians to write a code of ethics. The code is successfully passed as the code for the liberal party. The same party under which Betancourt ran her campaign for congress. Ingrid confronted politicians in a very unique `in your face manner.' At a speech given to the legislature, she wore a T-Shirt that read `Only the Truth!' During her time as a congress woman, she initiated a hunger strike in the name of honesty. For the majority of the population, the idea of a crusader coming form another country and from a privileged background is distant and unreal. However, no one can question Ingrid's determination, courage or the commitment to her ideals.
   The book outlines Betancourt's many political struggles to fight corruption wherever she found it. As a representative, "she was not afraid to ruffle the feathers of her fellow congress members." Demonstrated during "the campaign against a government arms contract to purchase outdated weapons" (Rank). Ingrid's honesty shines during this scandal (named the Galil scandal after the manufacturer of the guns). Shortly after, a second controversy emerges linking then President, Ernesto Samper, to drug money. The investigation of the President was launched after evidence became known that he had taken campaign donations from the heads of the Cali cocaine cartel. Betancourt was one of the few politicians who challenged him. Betancourt wanted to give the Colombian people a chance to breathe clean politics. Struggling to break the mold, Betancourt launched a new political party, the Liberal Oxygen Party, in 1997. "It was an effort to offer a choice outside of the traditional Liberal and Conservative parties" (Rank). Throughout the book she gives detailed accounts of the times when she found herself nearly alone in unmasking the enemies of the Colombian democracy.
   In the book, Until Death Do Us Part, the thirst for power inducts almost every politician into corruption. But Betancourt steers away from corruption, while navigating through temptations and threats. She never gives up on her ideals of honesty and truth. A clear example of gross ambition as mentioned by Betancourt in her book is the prosecutor that led the investigation of Samper's misconduct she describes him as ''moved by his own presidential ambitions.'' In her memoir Ingrid writes ''Is it ridiculous to play the democracy game all by myself?" Her story seems unbelievable at times. However it is sad and accurate. Betancourt has been one of the closest chances Colombia has had to feel true democratic freedom. This book is an insight into the corrupt government machine that runs Colombia. Betancourt relays the tragedies of the Colombian civil war through her own perspective. She, herself became a victim of the civil war she was trying to end. The guerrillas kidnapped Betancourt on Feb. 23, as she traveled into their former stronghold to show support for a local leader of her independent political party.
   By the time Betancourt was kidnapped by the FARC guerrillas (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia), she had become a prominent figure of Colombian politics. Although the approach of truth and honesty made many of her fellow politicians uncomfortable, Betancourt was elected to the Senate in 1994. Her campaign was and example of her courage to fight corruption. Betancourt went on to attain a seat in the congress two years later. She received more votes than any other candidate. When Ingrid was kidnapped, she was running as a presidential contender. Again, her campaign denounced the corruption of the political elite and prioritized the defense of the country she loves with all her heart. Until Death Do Us Part is a fascinating and enlightening. The book brings to light the many hardships a political leader faces, more so if it is a woman. The book provides a detail account of Betancourt's life of dedication, honesty and courage.
   [...]

5 comments about The Faiths of the Founding Fathers.

1. David Holmes writes a very informative study regarding the religious beliefs of America's Founding Fathers. He examines this diverse eclectic group in a opened balance perspective. Today there is a desire to better understand the relationship between the founding of America and the influence that Christianity played within that founding. This has been made apparently clearer as the religious right and the liberal left want to place the Founding Fathers into their respective camps and use them to make some political statement. Holmes reveals the religious views of several of the leading Founding Fathers. He shows that men such as Washington, Adams, Franklin, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe were more Deist in action and thought than orthodox Christian. These early US Presidents maintained a low religious profile during their presidency and didn't advocate personal religious beliefs upon the new nation. The influence of the Enlightenment from Bacon, Locke and Newton were spreading a new school of religious thought called Deism throughout England and into the Colonies. Having come from Europe where church and crown were extremely intertwined, the Founding Fathers had no strong desires to continue this tradition. As the First Great Awakening was growing into American's belief system, the foundations were beginning to be laid for a Nation to be built upon religious freedoms and personal liberties. Throughout history there have been individually great men and women, but at no time has there been found together, in one place and time, this collection of the truly wise and noble men such as the founding fathers. Men that "appeared less devout than they really were"..and "valued freedom of conscience and despised religious tyranny." It is near impossible to understand or even know an individuals private religious thinking. The best possible way of understanding this is, as Holmes shows, is by their writings and the lives they lived. Holmes' book challenges us to remember that the founding fathers were remarkable, even noble men and that we need to keep their background and ethos in proper perspective.
   
   This book gives an informative look at the men and the religious feelings that were spreading throughout America during this remarkable period. Holmes reveals to us the great and noble men who laid life, liberty, and property on the altar of freedom and never apostatized from it. Well worth the read and addition to the history shelf.



2. A concise primer on the faiths of our nation's founders. Fair assessments, avoiding any kind of dogmatic revisionism (be it evangelical or secular). Holmes deals with each figure individually, avoiding sweeping claims, and appreciating nuances. Avoid Meacham's _American Gospel_; it is simply an amalgam of anecdotes with no thesis other than "America has a public religion" driven over and over again. Stick with Dr. Holmes!



3. Shortly after Washington's death, certain writers began trying to depict him as a devout orthodox Christian. Mason Weem's book of 1800 was representative of this group and was reprinted regularly with newly added tales about Washington the pious man of prayer. The memorable story about the cherry tree came in the fifth edition in 1806 but the disreputable Weems was easily discredited. Jefferson, Madison, and many others disputed all these efforts. "Sir, he was a Deist," one of Washington's pastors declared upon discussion of the question.
   
   Franklin and the first five presidents were All Deists, a minimalist religious belief system without an organized hierarchy that sprouted from the Enlightenment. For the straight story about their beliefs and the varied Christian denominations of the colonies, this book can't be beat.
   
   The excellent reviews already on this site say it all. I'll just add that "Faiths of the Founding Fathers" is well organized, authoritatively researched, extensively documented, and unusually readable. History buffs and the general public will like this book.
   
   DB



4. This book was very well written. The author made the case that some of the founding fathers were not necessarily Christian, but Deists. His conclusions stem from letters written to, and from, various people that had contact with them (friends, family, clergymen, etc.) - which makes sense; however, some of the author's assumptions (i.e. the language the "fathers" used in writing and speeches) about how they referred to God (the Almighty, Nature's God, etc.) is not necessarily the best way to prove that the founding fathers were not Christian.
   
   It certainly shed some light, although not definitive, on the faiths of our founding fathers and their families.



5. David Holmes seems to be on a mission to disqualify our Founding Fathers as Christians. He picks a few names, Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, Monroe and Madison as if these were the only ones who had any influence in our early government. Further, he wants to make each of them a Deist when, in fact, most of their writings lead to a very strong Christian base. Like any person in public office, some speeches and writings can be taken out of context and you can easily make the writer or speaker appear to be something they are not. An in depth study of any of these six men will prove they lean far more to a Christian base than Deism. In addition, Holmes leaves out more than 30 other Founding Fathers who were very strong Christians. Somehow, many authors today have a goal of trying to convince us that our country was not founded upon Christian principles. A good source to confirm our country's foundational basis is David Barton's book, "Original Intent". I think Holmes book is slanted and short on factual information.

5 comments about Saddam's Secrets.

1. I enjoyed the information in the book. Poorly written but never the less informative



2. Finally, the inside scoop! Questions of WMD answered! Why isn't this information made more readily available to the American People? This is a story of one man's faith and honesty in the worst of situations! You want to know the truth? Read this book!!



3. This is an important book that every American should read. Gen Sada is an amazing man, an eye-witness in Saddam's regime who lived to tell about it and claims to have actually seen WMD with his own eyes. Fascinating!



4. It's a shame that the public has to dig for the truth rather than rely on the press to be honest, but that's the situation. If you really want to know what was going on rather than buy into the juvenile theory that this was somehow all about W's oil buddies, this is a great start.



5. Have only read a small amount so far, but already would rate it very good and something all americans should read.

5 comments about Pure Goldwater.

1. Let me state from the get go that I am a Senator Goldwater and President Reagan style Republican.
   
   What I think this books value is in 2008 is how it sheds alot of light on Senator Hillary Clinton who was a Goldwater girl as well as Senator John McCain who in his pre 2008 years was more Goldwater minded than most people know. But he has gone off course so badly and isnt the same open honest straight talking express man he once was.
   
   Also of interest to me was how Libertarian minded Senator Goldwater was and not the conservative Republican of recent years which is right wing Christian close minded mode. I say this as a Christian who is Goldwater mode.
   
   This is a book that anyone interested in sanity, smaller government, and Constitutional law should read. Sadly so many people probably see Goldwater as some right wing zealot. Thats President G. W. Bush, not Senator Goldwater.



2. What a Gem! Honest, thought-provoking, riveting and well-written. Pure Goldwater gives an insightful look at an important time in history. Entertaining and politically relevant during this election year. Conservatives will love it, and so will just about everyone else.



3. For those of us of a certain age, Barry Goldwater was the prickly candidate for president in 1964, whose "extremism in defense of liberty" speech turned away millions of voters. But Goldwater stayed around long after that and it's a good thing he did. "Pure Goldwater", a neatly arranged compilation of his journal entries (along with some letters and speeches) reveals a much more complex and attractive man than the public got to know more than a generation ago.
   
   The title of the book could not have been more appropriate. Here we see Senator Goldwater in all of his frankness, lambasting presidents with whom he worked, yet revelling in the love of his family, photography, flying and service to his country. In reading "Pure Goldwater" it's not hard to be in agreement with him on one page and subsequently want to wring his neck on the next. He seemed always to be on the cutting edge of the day's events, even when he was doing some of the "cutting", himself. It's fascinating to see him comment on every president from FDR to Clinton and there was much about most of them he didn't like.
   
   Much of the book centers around his relationship with Richard Nixon and the trials and tribulations of Watergate and perhaps the most intriguing part of the book follows his recollections on summing up Nixon's chances in the Senate for impeachment survival. I remember that day well and how it changed my mind about Senator Goldwater. Here was a true statesman rising to the occasion in a most difficult time in our nation's history.
   
   Barry Goldwater's seeming drift to the left regarding such issues as women's choice and gay rights no doubt sent shivers up and down the collective spines of his conservative colleagues. But Goldwater reasoned well and was always practical and this will be a big part of his legacy...a conservative man ahead of his time. "Pure Goldwater" is a pure joy to read and I commend John Dean and Barry Goldwater, Jr. for allowing us this terrific look at the senator...as told through his own words. I highly recommend it.



4. Pure Goldwater is just what the title indicates, vintage, pure Goldwater. How good it was to read about my conservative, political hero once again. This book was a delight to read. Sen. Goldwater's character, honesty, and leadership traits shine throughout the book. You always knew where the good Senator stood on issues - he didn't waffle; the book does an excellent job bringing his noble traits out. There were few people in the 1960's his equal, and even fewer today. In your heart you know he was right then, and he is just as right today. Bravo for such a great book. Pure Goldwater should be mandatory reading for US History students.



5. I live here in AZ and allot of things here are named after Goldwater. Some streets, buildings and foundations. And living here 12 years I know nothing about him! Only that he was a senator. My curiosity got the best of me and I ordered this book (audio book so I can listen on my way to work). And in finishing this book I feel I have a very intimate, honest, and broad look in to Goldwater's life. From the lil notes that he jotted down that were discovered, to whole letters written to and from the president!... It really shook me at the core, very raw stuff. Goldwater really had some simple and firm beliefs that once I was exposed to it (this book), I am now a firm believer. To go a step further, I considered myself a Democrat. After exposure to Goldwater's thoughts on many issues I realized how dead wrong I was on my stance as a Dem. I actually think now that I am a Republican or even a Libertarian (can't believe I just said that). More to the point, I'm a Goldwater believer now. To think, I almost cast my vote down the wrong path, & I am glad that I read this book in time for the election.

5 comments about The Last Lion: Winston Spencer Churchill, Visions of Glory.

1. This is William Manchester at his best. This is fascinating reading and fascinating writing. Of course Winston Churchill was quite a character but to be honest I didn't know that fact until I read this book and its companion volume.
   After reading this book I put it to my mind that I would read everything that Manchester wrote. I've got a couple more to go. You can't miss with this purchase. A great story, great writing, and good history. What more could you ask for?



2. Winston Churchill was not a likable or even an admirable man.He was dishonest,childish,ruthless and disloyal.Perhaps worst of all,he was a megalomaniac-he knew that he was a Great Man,and that some day he would fulfill a magnificent destiny. But when war and catastrophe came to England he was perhaps the only politician psycholigically capable of inspiring continued resistence and defiance to Adolph Hitler and the Third Reich.Given that England had already lost the war,that was a breathtaking achievement.
   
   James Boswell's "Life of Samuel Johnson",published in 1791,is generally considered the finest biography produced in the English language.However,Manchester's work is perhaps superior. Boswell was of Johnson's world and therefore conveyed it to his reader only incidently;that is,he naturally assumed that his reader would be familiar with the things and events with which he was familiar.Manchester,writing of the past,appreciated the necessity of re-creating Churchill's world for the reader.He was brilliantly successful.The world which Churchill inhabited would have been amazing even to most of his contemporaries because of his social class.As Manchester points out,in over 90 years of life Churchill never drew his own bath;one of his relatives,visiting friends without his valet,sent down word that he was having trouble getting his toothpaste to "froth properly".He'd never applied toothpaste to a toothbrush himself.It isn't just the story of Churchill's life that is so engrossing.It is the wonderful recreation of Churchill's world,of the people he knew and the conversations he had,the events which occurred and the way that Churchill and his friends and enemies reacted to the events.
   
   As Boswell loved Johnson,Manchester worshipped Churchill.Indeed,Churchill was in some ways a lovable man.He was devoted to his wife and family(happily married for almost 60 years-how many men can say that?) He revered his father (a syphlitic,who depised him,)and he was loyal to his country and the Empire it ruled.Personally,I doubt that I'd have been able to spend more than ten minutes in a room with Churchill.But this book is one of the finest I've ever read.I was honestly sorry to read the last of its almost 900 pages and I'm opening the second volume tonight.In the forward to the second volume Manchester quotes a definition of biographer.The biographer is judged "by his ability to suggest the sweep of chronology and yet to highlight the major patterns of behavior that give a life its shape and meaning."Boswell did that. Manchester,I believe,did it better.



3. Manchester is one of those writers who appears unable to disappoint. This is a book to be read and savored. For years, it sat on my shelf - I saw as a large undertaking that I wanted to do right.
   
   The book has a very interesting structure. First, it begins with a kind of interpretive introduction to the man, vividly characterizing him while also evaluating his strengths as a man of history and his glaring weaknesses. You see him, worts and all, and it is both funny and enlightening. The psychological depth is virtually unprecedented in any other bio I have read. Second, you get a view both into his milieu - as an aristocrat of talent and privilege in Victorian Britain - and a biography of both of his parents. This is crucially important, as we come to see Churchill as an anachronism, but also as a boy neglected by narcissistic parents. (Interestingly, the absence of one or both parents is a common trait in extraordinary achievers.) Third, you get his life story, more from the events he was involved in than as an intimate portrait, though much of his personal life is covered. Indeed, he used action as the most effective tonic against depression.
   
   The man that emerges is flawed and complex, but evidently a political genius. In my view, the key to his character is that he remained a Victorian gentleman, who viewed martial valor as the greatest source of meaning and glory in life. This suited him to titanic struggles, such as the one he faced with Hitler that places him in the ranks of the greatest historical figures. As an egotist, he always wanted to place himself at the center of events and yet did so with courage and tenacity in spite of his physical weaknesses. When out of power, he exercised other gifts, such as writing, with equal talent and energy.
   
   Nonetheless, Manchester proves that Churchill was not a politician deeply in touch with his constituency: he never developed a typical base of power and often his views did not synch with the mainstream. Without Hitler, his hour might never have arrived: this duality is a theme that runs through the entire book.
   
   If there is any flaw here, it is that Manchester includes a plethora of detail, not only about world events but in Churchill's political maneuverings. Normally, I delight in these details, if I know there is a purpose to all of it, which I did not always sense in this book. (Here a comparison with Robert Caro is instructive: you always know where he is going and why.) Others may see it differently, of course. Also, many of the historical details I already knew, so did not need Manchester's wordy introductions, but they were useful in the many cases of which I was ignorant.
   
   All in all, this is one of the most engrossing and fascinating bios I have ever read. Warmly recommended.



4. well this is the first book i read on winston churchill . bought it in 1983 . the foreword is unforgettable but historical mistakes in it makes this work not the very best on the luife of sir winston. great prose nevetheless.same can be said of book number two.



5. This is a truly *massive* work, equal parts scholarship and artistry. Though volume one runs close to a thousand pages (counting notes, sources, etc.), I finished reading it this afternoon after an off-and-on reading of about two weeks, and it just flew by. Manchester crafted this with such precision care that I fell into the narrative from page one.
   
   The greatest strength of the book itself-- aside from it's subject-- is Manchester's gift of narrative. WC was the quintessential Victorian, as Manchester points out time and again throughout both volumes. It is only appropriate, then, that the author should give some feel of what it was like to live in the British Empire at the time of Queen Victoria. Some of the very best passages, in my opinion, deal with life during the last quarter-century of Victoria's reign. These are not mere digressions. These fascinating glimpses into WC's era help the reader to better understand Churchill himself, who was born a Victorian and remained one to his dying day.
   
   Manchester provides insight into British colonial administration, life in the British Raj at the end of the 19th century, and the upper class's attitudes toward sexuality and marriage. While this is fascinating in itself, Manchester goes even further and weaves a vivid tapestry of politics, history, and culture through his use of personal correspondence. It is his exhaustive use of personal correspondence-- between WC and his parents, WC and his wife and children, WC and Members of Parliament, and between all sorts of people talking about Churchill and the events in which he was caught up--- that this gives Manchester's work the feeling, not of history or even biography, but of a life too large to have been lived by one man.

5 comments about Desert Queen: The Extraordinary Life of Gertrude Bell: Adventurer, Adviser to Kings, Ally of Lawrence of Arabia.

1. Very comprehensive and detailed account of an extroardinary woman whose influence still shapes the Middle East today.



2. Janet Wallach's history of Gertrude Bell (1868-1926), Desert Queen, was read by my book club at least twice over the years, and several members have remarked that this was one of the best books the group has ever read. Hmmm. I guess they forgave the author her writing style...
   
   Without question, Bell is a fascinating subject; a woman who played a major role in Middle Eastern politics, and yet whose story has rarely been told. A brilliant, curious female, she was the first woman to earn a first-class degree in modern history at Oxford, she wrote seven influential books on the Middle East and, following WWI, was named oriental secretary to the British High Commission in Iraq. She spoke several languages fluently, including Persian and Arabic and was an expert on Arab affairs and Middle Eastern politics. She created detailed maps of the country that would become Iraq, wrote travel books, served as an intelligence agent, was instrumental in creating present-day Iraq, maneuvered to put King Faisal on the throne of the new kingdom of Iraq, became an accomplished historian and archaeologist, and founded the first museum for antiquities in Baghdad.
   
   All this she achieved while facing the obstacles and prejudices of being a woman in a man's world. She enjoyed a challenge and defied all social customs for women of her day. Being a woman was both her greatest asset and her biggest barrier in a lifetime of unusual ambition. She found women insufferably dull, and at parties she would head straight for where the men were gathered discussing important topics. Needless to say, she offended the wives and annoyed the men wherever she went. Yet she had a unique ability to endear herself or make herself indispensable to all levels of male Arab society. As a woman, she understood the subtleties of the culture, which were crucial to political success. This ability enabled her to build relationships with the people, helped her reach her goals, and gave her an important advantage over her team members.
   
   Unfortunately, what should be a lively and exciting account of one woman's incredible achievements is impeded by Wallach's dry, tedious, academic prose. Though the book's academic tone might seem to lend credibility, Wallach's level of research itself seems questionable and not as thorough as her subject deserves. While Desert Queen offers biographical information on a praiseworthy woman and an important perspective on the situation in the Middle East, it should not be considered a definitive work for either or an afternoon's light reading. Put on your hip boots, Myrtle. The slogging is heavy.



3. It's remarkable that a book written about events that took place 100 years ago has direct relevance to today, but that's just one of the many strengths of "Desert Queen." When you read about Gertrude Bell's political savvy about Iraq and the stubborness of the male politicians who ignored her advice, well, the parallels are obvious.
   
   The biggest takeaway for me was imagining Bell's life traveling through the desert to meet sheiks who were truly living in a different world. The Middle East of the 19th century still had huge populations of nomadic tribes that measured their wealth in camels. They were not a part of the Western world -- though they were highly intrigued by it. With incredible bravery and an astounding ability to overcome exhaustion and discomfort, she worked her way into the tents of sheiks who would not let another woman sit in their presence. And then after a few months of visiting and gossip, she'd take a several-week journey back to the luxury surroundings of her family's home in England. There was probably only about a 50-year window in which a person could do what she did -- the heyday of British wealth, might, and arrogance -- and she took advantage of that period perfectly.
   
   Overall, I highly recommend this book for anyone who wants to learn about how Europeans thought about and influenced the Middle East. And, in fact, that's also the source of my only criticism of the book. If you don't know a lot about Middle East geography and history, the names and places mentioned in this book can sometimes be a blur. The maps and photos are very helpful, but for someone like me who has only a superficial knowledge, it's still hard to figure out at times.



4. This was my book group's pick and I could hardly wait to get it and read it; it sounded timely and fascinating. Unfortunately, it was like reading a textbook, interesting but WAY too dry. No one in our group finished it and even the brilliant woman who loves a book best if no one else understands it, didn't want to read it. I only stuck with it to page 50. Maybe it gets better as you get the author's rhythm, like Dickens. As much as I would like, I can't recommend it.



5. I enjoyed learning about the fascinating life and accomplishments of Gertrude Bell and the delicate and complex Arab culture and political history. I sadly realize that the knowledge and lessons that the history provided for us so abundantly are not being applied by our current government. Should we make presidential candidates take mandatory history tests in order to qualify for their candidacy? I am not much of a history reader, but this book certainly inspired me to learn more. Also it is a shame that a person as influential as Gertrude Bell has not been well known to us as much as she deserves. The writing of this book was complex but coherent, very easy to follow and enjoyable.

5 comments about Mein Kampf.

1. It seams odd, VERRY odd to have purchased this book. I am neither a Nazi, Neo Nazi nor simpathiser of ANY sort or degree!!!! You have NO idea
   how much bull I have recieved for just haviiing it, especially from my jewish aquaintances, but I think it is IMPORTANT to learn from the past. "You Know Who" was a MONSTER, a mad MONSTER, undeniabely!!!!!!! He was, however unfortunately, also a genius!!!!!
   I felt compelled to read this book in an attempt to find some degree of understanding and insight into how ANYONE could be SOOOO TWISTED, even EVIL!!!! For one man to do such things to another, let alone hundreds of thousands. His existance was a tragedy on ALL of humanity, a scar which can never be erased!!!! If humanity doesn't learn from it's mistakes it will be condemned to repeat them!!!!!!! There is knowledge in ALL things, no matter how horable and/or tragic!!!!!! LEARN!!!!!!!



2. Hitler was a grand socialist. He proposed state control (regulation) of industry, economic interventionism, universal healthcare, and:
   
   "We demand that the State shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens. "
   
   Oh, wait, that is just good old fashioned welfare statism a la Paul Krugman and H. Clinton.
   
   The fact that we universally recognize Hitler's racism as evil, while adopting the same collectivist welfare statism, speaks to our ignorance.
   
   Until individualism replaced collectivism, we will continue to see injustices against the individual from both the Liberals and Conservatives.



3. Mein Kampf is an interesting and powerful book to be sure. The book is not solely about the Jews, but I am writing my review in reference to Hitler's assertions therein, mostly because I am extremely disturbed by the content of many of the previous reviews. Hitler was a powerful figure, and obviously powerful still.
   
   I was patently shocked how many reviewers were taken in by Hitler's ongoing method of argument. Throughout the book, he makes his points by randomly refering to various notions, texts and occurences to prove his own inaccurate points. Because he stipulates various references, he manages to appear educated and convincing. This is particluarly true the case in Hitler's discussion of the Jews where he randomly refers to Jewish ideals and texts for his own end. What I found most interesting was precisly how little Hitler understood Judaism (although one uneducated reviewer asserts the oppposite), a faith, a philosophy, and ethnicity but not a race. What I found most alarming about many of the reviews was that people, even after all that has happened, bought into his various lines of reasoning on so many subjects, even those outside Judaism. His assertions, particularly about the Talmud, are are vague and highly misconstrued. Judaism is a philosphical religion, an as such is open to ongoing debate at all times even in the 21st century. I was floored by one reviewer who uses Hitler's own tactics to his make outlandish statments about the work of Talmud and Maimonedes, a topic on which he has no keen undertanding.
   
   For sure, Hitler is right about the Talmud in one respect: it is about life today, this moment and how to live it respectfully and well (although Hitler interprets this as a defect). While Christianity focuses on resurrection, Judaism focuses on the now, for tomorrow is uncertain and may not exist; for Jews, the afterlife, at best, is a shadowy thing.
   
   The fact of the matter remains that Judaism is the only religion in which God accepts ALL people so long as they are good; Judaism does not define goodness by Jewishness, but by goodness itself; belief in Judaism is not required. You do not have to be one of "The Chosen," a term which Hitler throws around in incite his readers, to be worthy. (To be "Chosen" in Judaism actually means that you are one who has accepted the burden 613, often contradictory, laws. Those who are not "Chosen" must only accept 7, very easy and innately human laws of behavior.)
   
   Mein Kampf is an important book and is hard to rate because it's can't be subject to "good" or "bad;" it stands outside such clear distinctions. It simply IS. While reading Mein Kampf I can only suggest that you read critically and take his assertions on all subjects with a grain of salt. It is arduous, self-serving and covertly incomplete. If you are at all interested in Hitler mind, this book is an obvious go to. It has people repeating and thus validating his injustices even now.



4. From my point of view this is probably one of the most important books written. This is one of those books that changes history. Yes, this means I completely disagree with what Hitler said about books. He mentioned that books don't change history, but a good speaker/leader does. While this is very true, books usually exist in conjunction with this. I think you need both because the book is far more timeless than the speaker and often times a book precedes a major turning point for a movement. Look at texts like "The Bible", "The Principia," or Euclid's "The Thirteen Elements". All these texts were turning points in history and changed the way we look at the world. "Mein Kampf" would forever change the way we looked at the world as well. It literally moved nations to act... in opposition of such a major power struggle.
   
   I do not advocate Hitler's methodology in what he did, but I do acknowledge the profound impact it has left on the world and the major advancements we were all forced to make in realms such as technology. Now that this book is part of history you can't help but think of the "what if..." scenarios as I read through this massive text, I'll play into these concepts as I touch upon specific areas. Now I'm not a World War II or World War I historian by any means, so it was a hard book for me to read some of the more minute details Hitler referenced in this book. However, I read it more for the prospects in philosophy.
   
   This particular edition is split into two different volumes with an excellent introduction by the translator. Volume I was printed in 1925 and then Volume II came out in the year 1926, so they were written very close together. The first was mostly philosophical and recounts his childhood growing up. The second was more a general history of the political party and how to deal with foreign nations. It's interesting that Hitler didn't put out any other books after these two and I assume it's because his involvement in politics took up much more of his time and no longer had the free time to write. However, they did find another book he was working on after the fall of the Reich and is now published as "Hitler's Second Book". This edition is great because it compared the first printing with the second printing and footnotes the discrepancies. It also adds in details on the people Hitler named specifically in this book who would be relatively unknown to the rest of the world outside Nazi Germany and especially helpful to me because I haven't read that much about this period in history to know the extreme details. In Volume's I and II Hitler specifically references incidents in World War I that really helped shape the beliefs he has here.
   
   Anyway the introduction that prefaces this edition is rather lengthy, but well worth the read. It adds more of the historical background into the text you are about to dig into. It has interesting anecdotes about Hitler's involvement with the party, like in the text he states he was the seventh member of the DAP, but later it was found out he was 555th and this was corroborated with an unsent letter from Drexler, one of the founders. In fact when historian's looked at the membership items that were left behind after the war they could see that Hitler's had been altered physically. Also the introduction has an excellent overview of the printing of this book. Such as how it is not allowed to be printed in certain countries. Luckily in my country no such restrictions apply to any printed document, so I am free to read and review whatever I wish, regardless of how inaccurate a printed document is. I'm definitely glad there was an introduction even though it added another twenty pages onto an already daunting read. The introduction also forewarns us that Hitler can have a tendency to ramble in forms that eventually make little sense. I'm glad this warning was stated because when reading this book it was quite clear when Hitler felt particularly passionate about the subject he started to go off on these ridiculous tangents and tirades, often times in run on sentence form.
   
   In the spirit of this book, I will review Volume I separately from Volume II. So first we discuss Hitler's philosophy and growing up. Personally, I think Hitler should have stuck with the philosophical approach and left politics to the politicians (regardless of the fact this didn't mesh with his philosophy). Hitler's main point in doing the things he believed in was to change society for the better. It's very clear that he truly thought he would be saving the world and putting Germany in the forefront of being that savior. Hitler's conclusion was that it would most easily be changed through moving into the political realm. He specifically outlined his plan for getting access to the political realm and the backing of the people through propaganda. He even spells out that the propaganda doesn't always have to be true; it just needs to draw a person's attention. Realistically, when we look back on what he was planning on doing and how he did it, none of the world should have been shocked that this is what would happen. He pretty clearly outlines where his prejudices are and why he has them.
   
   Hitler starts his story as a young boy growing up and becoming disillusioned with the world around him. His father wouldn't let him do what he really wanted to do, which was art. He doesn't seem like the over confident Hitler that history portrays today. In fact I would say the movie "Max" starring Noah Taylor as Hitler did a pretty good portrayal of that possibility, only that movie was not about Hitler in his High School years, so it was a little unrealistic. When World War I started Hitler joined the military and I think this is where his confidence in himself really started to take root. This is also where he became convinced that propaganda was the key to winning the war because upon viewing the enemy's propaganda it was better than what Germany was putting out. It would appear his assumption was correct; since via propaganda he got many crowds gathered to listen to him speak.
   
   Probably the most well known facet of his beliefs is the anti-Semitism that brought on the Holocaust. He eventually ended up in Vienna and I think this is where his prejudice became firm. You can see where his theory turns into some sort of paranoid dementia, because before you knew it he was calling everyone on the street a Jew in disgust. This was mostly based on looking at the person and guessing. He believed they had penetrated the newspaper industry and were completely lying to everyone in the world. As Volume I continues you find that eventually this belief grows into him thinking that they also controlled the governments. I think a lot of this stemmed from one other text, which he mentions in this book "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." This is a hoax that has existed for a while and first started getting published in 1897. I believe the global conspiracy outlined in that book only solidified what Hitler suspected with his newspaper theory. I was surprised that Hitler had originally wanted to start out as an artist and actually held a few gallery viewings of his work. I wonder at this point if there is any Hitler original art around. If I remember correctly I heard actually wasn't a very good artist. It's interesting to note that as Hitler continues with his tirades I this book, you can tell he has a special soft spot for art because he wants more of that industries presence in Germany.
   
   Overall I was surprised at how little anti-Semitism there was in the book in comparison to the length of the text. I was actually expecting a lot more. Don't mistake me, he took jabs wherever he possibly could and there was an entire chapter dedicated to the subject. However, I felt like in the first volume he spent more time criticizing the Slavs and the Austrians as being a much more immediate problem. It's almost as if the first and foremost problem was his own government and Austria; the issue of the Jewish population was a more of a global problem and probably seemed to be less immediate. You get a wholly different feel by the time we reach Volume II though.
   
   I was also very surprised at the countries he referenced as being respectable, specifically England and America. He must have been greatly disappointed in England when they refused to side with him during World War II and he must have felt doubly wrong about his initial assessment of America when we funded a lot of his enemies. Being an American I found some of his comments curious since it seems he felt we had a dominant German aspect of our country. I found this odd since it was essentially founded by England and France mostly. I couldn't help but think that Hitler was misinterpreting his history or the books he was reading were just plain wrong.
   
   For the most part Hitler is a pretty good writer. I found that he appears very intelligent and very well read, also very arrogant. He has sections that discuss the part of his life where he was looking into the political arena and when he came across the German Workers' Party. He doesn't hesitate to point out how superior his ideas were or how much better things worked when done his way. From the point of view of a leader, this seems counter to what you would want. Since his ability to elevate his own status seems to be his main underlying motive rather than helping his people, despite what he actually says. There is one instance when he was recounting the first speeches given for the party and how the first speaker was rather boring, but when he spoke the crowd became excited and into the words, they stood up and cheered even. History recounts Hitler as a very excellent speaker and I have no doubt this is true, but it's curious to see that he puts himself over his own party members constantly in this book. There were also sections where he got very passionate about a topic that became very confusing, as I explained above. I don't think this speaks to his inability to write, but rather his inability to write clearly when he is really trying to get his point across on a topic he believes as a core problem.
   
   Either way you looked at it, I couldn't help but think by the end of Volume I that Hitler would have been one of the world's most celebrated leaders if he had just put his prejudice aside. This was the case... at least until I read Volume II. Through Volume I he seems to genuinely want to help his people and the world around him. The one major crux in his argument is that he believed in some overly prejudice driven conspiracy. I think Hitler really had to start struggling in the end when it was becoming even clearer that the Jews weren't as well off in Germany as he believed they were, especially during the great depression. I was surprised at his focus on helping the middle class and a seemingly focal point on intelligence and action. It appeared his main push to change the nation was centered on elevating the knowledge of the German peoples as well as moving them to the desire for action to help their nation. I think this is a great point and he's most certainly not wrong about it being needed. However, my interpretation of this concept would be dashed by Volume II...
   
   Volume II made it incredibly clear to me that Hitler had no place in becoming a leader and especially no place on deciding education reform. Shortly into Volume II he has a lengthy chapter on what he plans to do with education to bolster a more national spirit for young Germans and to create what he refers to as a "folkish state". The concept of the "folkish state" is discussed in great length throughout Volume II and seems to be the main focus. One of the first things he was going to do was decrease the amount of time in classrooms and increase the amount of time for exercise. Following this he would decrease the amount of subjects being taught in school. This completely conflicts with his desire for an intelligent Germany, and he also discusses at length how the intelligentsia of the area are all weaklings and spineless. He notes that many students learn quite a bit of frivolous subjects in High School, which is true, but I personally believe that being a well rounded student is far better. I do agree that people need more exercise, this is painfully clear to me living in America, but to sacrifice the access to knowledge is not a viable solution! He complains at length that too many people complain about certain political actions, but being spineless professors they never actually do anything about it. Hitler sought to change this and part of this included that right after High School the population (men) would go directly into the military. Hitler being a Veteran clearly thought his experience taught him strength, so he thought that what was good for him would be good for everyone else. If only such things were true, this is clearly something that cannot be put into practice. A lot of these crazy ideas may have seemed plausible on paper, but realistically they are a fool's errand... an errand Hitler was intent on running! After a citizens completion of Army service they were then allowed into the community to pursue whatever higher level career they saw fit to pursue. His purpose in High School was to expose the students to enough generalities for them to make a choice, which is a good idea, but his plan of execution was fairly far fetched and unrealistic. Personally, in 2008, I don't think High Schools are teaching students enough to prepare them for college or to perform in the working world. So it would seem less education on academics is not the answer, but the world really does need to find some kind of a balance on this subject, even Hitler recognized that and he lived in a vastly different era from our own.
   
   Volume II also takes a drastic turn in terms of anti-Semitism and his foreign relations outlook. England seems to have been demoted into a nation that they could possibly not ally with due to the financial control of the Jewish empire. The United States was also seen as a victim of this disease, but his knowledge of American finance seems to have been quite limited. Granted there were some major firms in the U.S. that were founded by German Jews, namely Goldman Sachs, but what about firms like J.P. Morgan? In terms of the major American firms there was a balance and in the 1930's Goldman Sachs nearly went out of business in the Great Depression, so clearly this racial favoring of economic power was quite unfounded. I think Hitler spoke on these foreign nations rather out of turn because it was pretty clear he didn't know all that much about the nations and had gotten all of his knowledge from books, which may have been biased. For he terms Ford as one of the only free American business men, but in the second printing he no longer names Ford specifically, I felt this was curious. This was a drastic change from my perspective after reading Volume I, where he praised America. So even within his own book he is very contradictory. Also the focal point of being against the Slavs and Austrians has been replaced by Germany's mortal enemy... France. This sort of came out of nowhere, since in Volume I they were not "mortal enemies" just the regular kind. Hitler must have read a lot more on the subject and decided the French were far worse than they once appeared. I find all this curious because he prefaces Volume II, with saying that it's going to be about the party history and formation. The above topics have nothing to do with the party history or its formation, rather Hitler's own pet peeves about the problems that he saw after World War I.
   
   Most of this Volume is spent complaining about current (1920's) Bourgeoisie decision making and discussing what Hitler plans to do to fix that. I personally wasn't buying it, but then again, his book is so long that I doubt many of the general workers ever actually read what he wrote. He did spell out in Volume I that he was essentially going to dupe the masses into following him by creating the best propaganda to get people to go to the meetings. At that point he probably understood the concept of mob madness and let that do the rest for him. He recounts his early involvement with the party as becoming the head of propaganda, which is what he wanted because he believed propaganda, first and foremost, was the fulcrum to a party's success. Hitler even points out that it doesn't matter if the party is well organized at that time if the propaganda doesn't bring the masses in, they will have nothing to organize in the first place. He also discusses at length the rarity of a man who can organize and lead well; I couldn't help but feel that he thought himself to be such a man. He was a brilliant strategist and acutely aware of the power of the threat of violence on the general populace, especially after a major war that was still fresh in peoples memories. One of his main points was that he believed that it didn't matter what the people knew as long as an intelligent leader was looking out for them, and it's clear he believed that he was the person that could truly help the most and should be leader. This is regardless of the violence he would have to inflict; besides he only wanted strong people to be German anyway, so a show of strength went a long way with him.
   
   It's interesting to also note that he clearly wanted to rewrite some of the annals of history to favor the German people. In his long winded explanation of the Folkish State he points out that he believes the Aryan's are the only ones who could ever develop culture. No, he wasn't referring to the peoples belonging to the nation of India, but rather the Germanic peoples. See, the term Aryan comes from India, and I have no idea if Hitler knew this or not, but that's its origin. Indians clearly wouldn't have been high on his list, and certainly didn't qualify as those being able to create culture despite their history of creating that vast nation. Rather, it appears the legend and concept of the Aryan survived and came down to Hitler as the superior race. For some reason he equated that with the Germanic peoples. His whole concept of the white population being the only force intelligent enough to create culture is clearly unfounded. He gets even more contradictory in this concept since he was well aware that Germany was vastly tribal up until the Roman invasions. He states the reason was that "we were a young people". This is just foolishness because it was trade in technology that eventually brought what we call "civilization" today to the Germanic tribes. It has nothing to do with them being the only creative force in the world. He completely ignores the fact that Egypt existed long before as a civilization. I question whether he knew of the Arab city-states of Sumer, but it doesn't explain Egypt. I think Hitler merely viewed them as "uncivilized" or "not a cultured" or whatever other twisted elaboration he wanted to thrust upon them. Either way, he does not explain his reasoning in detail, and just states matter of factly that only Aryans harbor the creative force to develop culture and no one else.
   
   Overall I walked away with reading a superb book, in my opinion. At times it was very hard to read and I will be the first to admit that not everyone will struggle through this thing. There are too many sections of rambling that don't drive home the main points. It all sounds very smart at first glance, but when you sit down and analyze what he's saying inherent contradictions come to the surface. Then it occurs to the reader that most of his language use is merely superfluous for the sake of sounding intelligent (much like this sentence). No one wants an incredibly inconsistent leader (however, I feel like that's all we get at times!). Despite the racial hatred, I am glad I read this book, it gives me a great historical perspective and I now understand where Hitler was coming from. On a philosophical note, it really makes me think of the concept of evil and how that plays into perspectives. From Hitler's perspective he thought he was saving his people. He thought he was actually saving the world from the greatest threat and he really thought the other nations would see the truth that he saw and back him up. Alas, for Hitler he was chasing after rumors and ghosts that didn't actually exist.
   
   In reading this I also couldn't help but wonder about what the world is like today. Lots of "what if" questions come to mind. Despite the incredible tragedy that Hitler wrought on so many lives, it was really the need to ramp up production of war elements that brought the world out of the great depression. So Hitler really did end up helping the world in this sense by provoking everyone to action. He also motivated the world to increase production and research into massive amounts of technology. Atomic energy might not have come to us as soon as it has without this provocation. I can't deny this factor. Also, I have to look at the historical perspective that the country I now reside in is the major world power because of Hitler's actions against Europe! Many people will probably consider these horrible thoughts, but I can't deny the reality of the situation and it leaves me to wonder that if Hitler had become the artist he always wanted to be, would we be in the same situation? Would Israel exist today if he never came to power? After World War II the Cold War went quickly into effect and I wonder if I would even have the internet to relay my ideas if World War II had never taken place, since that also forced us to ramp up production and research in technology. As a philosophical perspective these are all very profound concepts and questions. Despite all the horror that was wrought in the war, if you step back with the utilitarian perspective of Mills and look at all that has come out of the war that has elevated our lives and the economy as a whole.
   
   On the reverse side, what if Hitler had actually succeeded in what he wanted to do? Israel surely wouldn't exist today. Would Christianity be the same? Since he seemed to respect Christianity and he was surely no atheist, so would his disdain for the Jewish people provoke him to edit the Bible down to just the New Testament? I've already said before that he clearly sought to rewrite history and I don't think anything would be out of his grasp. I do know one thing for sure though, I wouldn't have been able to read all the books I have under a reign like that, and I most surely would not have been able to criticize this book as I have in such a society. Thankfully his party was not in power for a long time, but apparently long enough to change the world.



5. AN AUTOBIGRAPHICAL BOOK OF HITLER.
   A PRICELESS MANUSCRIPT OF A MANS DESIRE TO CREATE A WORLD IN WHICH HE ALONE WILL RULE,A MILLION MAD MEN WILL HAVE WRITTEN BOOKS LIKE THIS AN NO ONE WILL TAKE THEM SERIOUSLY YET HE CAME CLOSE TO ACHIEVEING HIS VISION,HOW EVER DELUDED HE WAS, HOWEVER EVIL HE WAS ,THIS BOOK IS A TEMPLATE OF HIS VISION AND VIEWS.