5 comments about Ricochet: Confessions of a Gun Lobbyist.

1. This book was great. I am a Lifetime Benefactor member of the NRA and I found the insider characterizations to be most enlightening. It's critics call the NRA "extreme" but it does speak for me.
   
   I love the examples that it made of gun grabbing politicians in 1994, reminding the arrogant elitists in Washington that they serve at the pleasure and voting consent of their contituents back home and if they try to take a man's gun away they'll get what's coming to them at the polls as a large number of gun grabbing Democrats found out the hard way.



2. 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.



3. 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...



4. 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



5. 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 comments about Twice Adopted.

1. Well I hope Christ is nicer to Michael than Ronnie was. Ronnie once famously asked which one is mine when visiting Michael at camp, not knowing which of the boys was his adopted son. Presumably on the day of judgement Christ won't ask Michael "Which one are you?"... I've always cut Michael some slack despite his pandering conservative views and his seemingly insatiable thrist to milk his connection to his father for every last dime he can hustle. And in a way it is refreshing to see Michael still throwing himself at Ronnie's cowboy boots even after his passing. Then again there are still dollars to be made which brings us back to this book. The sob story presented here is not without genuine sobs, but I found it all a tad tragic that here is this abandonded boy still trying to win some acceptance from Dad - be it his earthly one or God - and that his method of winning that acceptance is to live on his knees instead of his own two feet. Hopefully Michael's next volume will be when he finds his own voice and his own manhood.



2. Michael Reagan writes the kind of autobiography one would expect from a radio talk show host -- part soul-bearing, part diatribe. This is not a particularly well written book, so don't wait around for the Pulitzer, but it's a quick read so you won't hate yourself for having spent the time reading it. It it is a heartfelt account of a man who has finally battled his demons and come to peace with his place in life. Along the way, Reagan uses his story as a jumping off point to talk about social issues (divorce, pornography, etc.). His story is interesting for fans of his father, a little insight into the family history and a sympathetic portrayal of two parents (Ron & Jane) who did their best to raise a troubled kid. Mike also shares a clear story of his commitment to Jesus Christ and the huge difference that has made in his life story.



3. One of the most important publications in recent years. It not only helps with the survival aspects of molestation and abuse but also alerts adults how to recognize preditory behavior in caregivers, teachers, etc.
   
   Michael has exposed a raw edge of hurt in himself and also shared healing. Bless him for his courage!



4. Michael Reagan writes from a child's perspective here. He details traumas that he suffered as a child including adoption, molestation, the divorce of his parents, and boarding school.
   
   Although he is in his 50s now, he is still affected by childhood events, particularly the molestation. During the course of his life he has engaged in high risk behaviors and had suicidal thoughts stemming from his experiences.
   
   It took decades, but he finally found redemption through his relationship with Christ. His wife was a major player in helping him overcome this as well.
   
   This book would be good to read for those who have experienced some of the issues mentioned above. Additionally, I think it would help to provide great insights for adoptive parents, all parents, and those who work with children. I also recommend it for anyone who likes to read an inspirational story of the redemptive power of Jesus in one's life.



5. This book is so good I read it in two days. I could not put it down. I can't help but think about the Bible verse, Romans 8:28, after finishing this book. Truly, God has worked out all the things that happened to Michael in his life for his good, and now Michael is allowing God to use his experiences for the good of others. What a testimony!!! I was touched by the transparency of Michael --- he made me laugh (the story about the nun throwing erasers) and he brought me to tears (almost forgetting to hug his Dad during a visit to see him). One of the things that spoke to me the most is the perspective he gives on healing. I think that many times we think that healing means we will not experience pain, but Michael describes quite the opposite in his book. It is clear that God has healed him from the harmful effects of his past experiences, but also clear that he still feels pain from them. Michael demonstrates that one of the reasons God allows us to still feel the pain and still be healed is so that we can share in the sufferings of others who are going through similar experiences. I encourage anyone who wants to read a story of how Jesus Christ truly redeemed a man and how we can "redeem" others to read this one.

5 comments about William F. Buckley, Jr.: Pied Piper for the Establishment.

1. In one of the most bizarre books I have ever read, John Birch Society honcho John F. McManus puts forth the wackiest conspiracy theory imaginable--that the renowned conservative polemicist William F. Buckley has for more than fifty years served as an agent for a cabal that aims to set up a Communist world state.

   This cabal, which he dubs "the Establishment," is run by a group of influential conspirators whom he calls "insiders." A number of organizations including the the United States Central Intelligence Agency, the Council on Foreign Relations--an influential think tank--and even college fraternities such as Yale University's Skull and Bones Society are also part of the Establishment. McManus contends that the conspirators recruited Buckley and then assigned him the mission of taking over the conservative movement so as to lead it astray, and that for more than five decades, Buckley has faithfully served the Establishment by enthusiastically carrying out this assignment.

   While his book is well-written and readable, the evidence McManus presents to back up these sensational charges is rather wanting. Most of it comes from secondary sources, many of which are publications of the John Birch Society itself. Sometimes he uses no evidence at all, as when he asserts, without an iota of proof, that the Central Intelligence Agency must have financed National Review, the opinion journal which Buckley helped to start.

   McManus' use of facts is also highly selective. For example, in trying to portray the Skull and Bones Society as an arm of the conspiracy, he cites the names of a number of "Bonesmen" who, he asserts, are doing the conspiracy's work. However, he fails to mention that Senator Robert A. Taft (R-Ohio), a leading conservative whom he regards as a hero, as well as President William Howard Taft--not exactly a lion of the Left--were also members.

   McManus also flays Buckley's longtime associate, James Burnham, for having once been a Trotskyist--although he had long since repudiated Trotskyism and had become a noted anti-communist by the time he teamed up with Buckley--and condemns Burnham's book, The Web of Subversion, a bestseller in 1954, for not having hewed to the Birch party line. However, McManus fails to note that for several years, the John Birch Society itself published and distributed this very same book! Perhaps being a Bircher, like being a liberal, means never having to say you're sorry.

   And so it goes. Although McManus is a skilled communicator who can write slick prose, he presents a highly distorted portrait of William F. Buckley that is simply not true to life. While his book is of some usefulness in that it presents some of the Old Right's criticisms of Buckley's style of conservatism, McManus' flawed analysis and his selective use of facts to fit his bizarre conspiracy theory diminish its value. McManus may have come out swinging, but he failed to land a glove on William F. Buckley.




2. In his introduction, John McManus quotes from a 1952 essay by William F. Buckley, Jr. published in the Catholic magazine Commonweal. Buckley wrote:

   "...we have got to accept Big Government for the duration -- for neither an offensive nor a defensive war can be waged, given our present government skills, except through the instrument of a totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores..."

   I had seen this infamous quote before I read McManus' book, but reading the book motivated me to check the original source in the local university library: McManus is quoting accurately and the quote is not taken out of context.

   So, why would a writer, such as Buckley, who has made a career claiming to be an opponent of Big Government and a defender of traditional values and individual rights, endorse a "totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores"?

   This is the question which McManus' book aims to answer.

   McManus is President of the right-wing John Birch society, but, although I myself differ from McManus and his group on a host of issues (ranging from abortion and the Drug War to China policy), I found his book to be well-documented, accurate, and chockful of relevant facts.

   Part of McManus' explanation rests on the fact, publicly acknowledged by Buckley, that Buckley was at one time a CIA operative; some of Buckley's closest political associates (e.g., James Burnham, Willmoore Kendall) were also CIA operatives. The CIA's penchant for clandestinely funneling money to useful intellectuals is now a matter of public record (see, e.g., Saunders' "The Cultural Cold War"). For example, the famous "Congress for Cultural Freedom," which published the internationally renowned intellectual journal "Encounter," was eventually admitted by all concerned to be a CIA front. McManus points out that it is more than credible -- given the CIA's admitted record with the CCF, "Encounter," etc. -- that Buckley, along with his flagship operation, the magazine "The National Review," was a CIA front.

   To what purpose? Prior to Buckley, American conservatives had been anti-war and anti-militarist: the right-wing had opposed American involvement in both World War II and Korea.

   Buckley changed all that.

   Regardless of the possible CIA connection, the Buckley re-definition of conservatism served broader goals of the governing establishment. As McManus points out, Buckley's strategy consisted of "portraying the Red menace as nearly invincible. Americans could then be persuaded to accept higher taxation, increasingly onerous controls, and an array of international alliances leading to world government, all under the guise of opposing the external Soviet threat."

   The military draft, the Great Society, federal control of scientific research and higher education, etc. -- to use Buckley's phrase, "a totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores," all justified by the need to confront and out-compete the Soviet Union.

   To anyone who suggests that this was not simply a ruse aimed at maintaining political power, McManus points out that the Buckleyites even "red-baited" McManus' own far-right, rabidly anti-Communist John Birch Society! In October 1965, Buckley's "National Review" accused the Birchers' founder, Robert Welch, of following the "pacifist-Commie line" because Welch had expressed some well-founded doubts about the ill-fated U.S. adventure in Vietnam.

   What were Buckley's personal motivations? McManus quotes an early Buckley associate, Medford Evans: "The reluctant conclusion that I have reached is that William F. Buckley Jr. is and has been driven by vanity, ambition, and greed to seek a place in the Establishment which he professes -- or once professed -- to oppose."

   McManus also quotes the populist Kevin Phillips who more colorfully hints that Buckley's actions were due to personal status insecurity (the Buckleys were "New Money," not old wealth):

   "There was, of course, a time when Bill Buckley was anti-establishment -- back in the long-ago days when he was an Irish nouveau-riche cheer leader for Joe McCarthy. But since then he's primed his magazine with cast-off Hapsburg royalty, Englishmen who part their names in the middle, and others calculated to put real lace on Buckley's Celtic curtains."

   Certainly, Buckley's little magazine has, since its inception, reeked of a certain pseudo-sophisticated air that falsely suggested to its readers that the magazine could elevate them to a higher realm of elite taste and intellectual sophistication.

   So Bill Buckley is not a real conservative but merely a willing tool of the anti-conservative establishment. Does it matter? Buckley is, after all, now in his dotage -- the influential conservatives nowadays are Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, etc.

   The answer is that Buckley, for good or ill, succeeded in shaping the American conservative movement in his own image. If they are not quite Buckley's clones, Limbaugh, Hannity, and Coulter are nonetheless his ideological descendants. Buckley himself will doubtless soon be dead, but his influence lives on.

   Furthermore, just as Buckley and his cohorts found the Cold War to be a useful excuse for creating a "totaliatrain bureacracy within our shores," so now a newer generation of faux conservatives is using the threat of Islamic terrorism to squelch any authentic anti-establishment, Constitutionalist elements on the Right and to re-establish a Buckleyite "totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores." History does repeat itself.

   For further discussions, from varying perspectives different from McManus', of Buckley's dominating influence on the American conservative movement, I recommend Raimondo's "Reclaiming the American Right," Nash's "The Conservative Intellectual Movement in American Since 1945," and Gottfried's "The Conservative Movement."




3. This entertaining and well written book describes how a tweedy, crypto-socialist elitist became the preeminent spokesman for the conservative cause. Starting with Buckley's connections at Yale and the Scull and Bones, the CIA, the Council on Foreign Relations and finally the Bilderberger Group, the book describes how Buckley successfully networked his way to celebrity.
   
   The book poses and answers many questions: Buckley is a conservative so he supports limited government, right? Wrong. Buckley is a conservative so he opposes socialist programs, right? Wrong. Buckley is a conservative so he opposes abortion, drugs, prostitution, homosexuality, and pornography, right? Wrong on all accounts. So what kind of conservative is Buckley? He isn't one. As "Pied Piper of the Establishment" ably demonstrates he was a former conservative turned de facto socialist who used snobbery and ridicule to silence contrary opinion.



4. This is a great book to help understand the relationship of the Establishment Elite to the control of high government positions, the Major Media, and the use of that media in portraying false images (reputations) of various persons in positions of leadership and influence. And, of course, it shines a light on Buckley's phoney "conservatism" and allows you to also see through deceptions of other so-called conservatives who spout similar rhetoric.



5. Buckley pleaded agnosticism when it came to knowledge of the treachery of Orthodox Judaism and Zionism.
   
   His tenure as an unrepententant CIA agent posted to the CIA's Mexico City station under E. Howard Hunt, and as a member of Skull and Bones, the masonic secret society that numbered among its luminaries George Herbert Walker Bush, George W. Bush and John Kerrey, disqualifies Mr. Buckley for serious consideration as a Christian, despite his renowned ardor for classical music and highbrow culture.
   
   In his play "A Man for All Seasons" Robert Bolt has Thomas More ask the traitor Sir Richard Rich if the selling of his soul was worth gaining the office of Attorney General for Wales. We ask the same of the shade of Wm. F. Buckely Jr: Bill, now that you're burning in hell, is the fawning New York Times obituary by Zionist asset Douglas Martin worth the price of admission?
   
   For the lowdown on Buckley read this book by John McManus. It's not the whole enchilada but it's a spicy dish nonetheless.
   
   They say the devil is a gentleman. If that's the case, then WFB Jr. was the archetype of the stereotype.
   
   --Michael A. HoffmanII

1 comments about Bella Abzug: How One Tough Broad from the Bronx Fought Jim Crow and Joe McCarthy, Pissed Off Jimmy Carter, Battled for the Rights of Women and Workers, ... Planet, and Shook Up Politics Along the Way.

1. This is my first Amazon review. I felt I had to write a review for this wonderful book. On one hand, this is an inspiring account of the passion and vigor that catalyzed the civil rights and feminist movements in this country (in stark contrast to much of the hollow rhetoric these days). On the other, it is an entertaining and poignant portrayal of an incredibly complicated character in American history. The form of the book, something of a round table discussion between Abzug and those who knew her, helps the reader to get a sort of 360 degree history with multiple views of single events. It is a finely wrought and powerful portrayal of Abzug and of the history of our country. I hope particularly that young women (and men) will read it and be inspired.

5 comments about Disturbing the Peace: A Conversation with Karel Huizdala.

1. This is the most insightful book I've ever read on the spirit of political dissent. It was published as Havel's responses to a series of written interview questions smuggled to him while he was under watch in the 80s. From this vantage point, 1989 is nowhere on the horizon. Thus, there is no triumphalism in the way Havel understands his generation. He is deeply meditative, and even-handed, about the human condition. There are no tremendous feats of courage, just a bounteous sense of passion, reasonableness, and brotherhood. This private spirit of solidarity led a community of leaders to establish a civil society in the interstices of an oppressive system. I read this in China, a very different environment that does not share all same characteristics that made Havel's movement successful. To better understand the limits of contemporary dissent in China, I'd recommend Merle Goldman's (dense) "Sowing the Seeds of Democracy in China" or Zhang Xianliang's "Grass Soup" -- his un-hyperbolic work-camp memoirs of the Anti-Rightist Campaign in the 1950s. Zhang is now a CCP member, but that doesn't diminish in the least the power of the message.



2. Whenever I need a moral boost I go back and reread Vaclav Havel's
   "Disturbing the Peace". This book is a series of essays by the
   dissident Vaclav Havel that were smuggled out of communist
   Czechoslovakia and translated by a Havel friend in the West. Vaclav
   Havel was a playwright who became a Czech dissident who became leader
   of the Velvet revolution (which ousted the communists) and who finally
   became president of the republic.

   Vaclav Havel was the foremost
   dissident under the communist regime. He openly challenged the ruling
   government with such essays as "Power to the Powerless" and
   "The Soul of Main under Communism". (Actually I forgot the name
   of the latter essay. I think "The Soul of Man under Communism"
   is an essay written by Oscar Wilde. But Havel did address this theme
   in "Disturbing the Peace" and in essays he forwarded to the
   communist rulers.)

   One of the most exciting parts of the book is
   where Havel describes the dissident communitie's efforts to publish a
   Havel essay advocating that the Czech government adhere to the terms
   of the Charter 77 human rights accord to which they were a signatory.
   The story is spine tingling thriller complete with car chases and
   obscure drop points. It reads like a John le Carre novel except it is
   real.

   After you read "Disturbing to Peace" I also recommend
   "The Magic Lanten" by Timothy Garton Ash. This is a first hand
   account of the fall of the communism as the democratic revolution
   rolled across Czechoslovakia, East German, Hungary, and Romania.
   Garton Ash was privy to the inner circle of people who plotted and
   executed these bloodless coups. (Bloodless everywhere except, of
   course, in Romania.)
   
   
   




3. This is a fine book about an amazing man. I was truly inspired by Vaclav Havel after reading this book. This book is an "easy read" even though it is largely about weighty matters. It is an interesting and enlightening book.



4. Other reviews are right on the money in terms of this being a very good book and of course it covers many key elements of the events and times during the changes in Czechoslovakia. However the are several key messages, and lessons for anyone interested in managing, motivating and leading people; particularly through difficult or uncharted changes. There are also some good reflections on the role, character and nature of theater and other individual and group activities in the arts.



5. Edit of 17 Apr 08 to add links.
   
   This book should be read as an adjunct to the author's other major book along these lines on power to the powerless.
   
   The most gripping and troubling conclusion that I drew from this book is that the United States of America is today much closer to where Czechoslovakia was in 1968 than anyone other than the Chomsky's and Vidal's might be willing to admit. We have both a federal government and a national corporate economy that thrives on elitist secrecy and blatant lies--even our non-profit sector is corrupt, from the Red Cross to United Way to many others. The people, the citizen-voters, truly have lost all power, as well as access to the information that might give them back the power, and this is indeed a black, absurdist-realist situation.
   
   On a more positive note, the author offers up, in the course of a long series of interviews, a number of ideas that are relevant to America today, as well as to any other emerging or re-emergent democracies in the making.
   
   1) Model of behavior. When arguing with the center of power, do not get side-tracked with ideological debates over right or wrong. Focus on very specific concrete things (e.g. term limits, campaign finance reform, neighborhood economics) and stick to your guns.
   
   2) Popular coalitions. Non-violent non-partisan popular coalitions are the core means of taking back the power. They represent a means for bring together groups of people from widely divergent backgrounds, with genuine social tolerance.
   
   3) Informal networks. Even under conditions of repression and censorship, informal networks of dissidents and quasi-dissidents can be effective in sharing information through samizdat publications. [With the Internet, these possibilities explode, although caution must be taken on the fringes since the Internet is easily monitored and the more radical leaders could be declared seditionist "combatants" ineligible for their rights as citizens...speaking of the Soviet Union, of course, not America.]
   
   4) Man versus Machine. Havel reaches his own conclusions founded in Czech literature and his own experience, with respect to the urgency of restoring the kinship and human connections that used to drive politics, economics, and other aspects of organized living. He is at one with Lionel Tiger among many others, with respect to the terribly consequences of the industrial era in terms of de-humanizing decision-making and allowing remote elites to treat individual workers as dispensable cogs in the machine, whose lives matter not a whit.
   
   5) Neighborhoods, Politics "From Below". He joins the authors of the Cultural Creatives (Paul Ray and Sherry Ruth Anderson) and of IMAGINE: What America Could be in the 21st Century (Marianne Williamson) in emphasizing the vital role that neighborhoods must play in any democracy. From political self-governance to sustainable economics to low-cost healthy agriculture to cultural cohesion, neighborhoods are the sin qua non of democracy--without active neighborhoods, one can go so far as to say, national democracy is a sham, a false theater, fully equivalent to the centralized, repressive, inefficient totalitarian control states of earlier eras.
   
   6) Small Numbers Can Make a Difference. I was struck by how few were the original dissidents and organizers--in some cases, 20-30 in number, in others 70-80. Earlier studies have suggested that Hitler took power over millions with just 25,000 people. One can only hope that the anti-thesis is true, and that the 50 million cultural creatives can take back the power by getting serious about organizing across neighborhoods and into a national network.
   
   7) Art and theater matter. Even under conditions of severe censorship and control, art and theater can be the manifestation of uncensored life, "life that spits on all ideology and all that lofty word of babble; a life that intrinsically resist(s) all forms of violence, all interpretations, all directives....here stood truth..."
   
   8) Absurdity is a warning. Nihilistic and absurd theater or other works of art are a caution. They "do not offer us consolation or hope (but) merely remind( ) us of how we are living: without hope.
   
   9) Truth can be misappropriated. The author experienced the misappropriation of his words and was both hurt and enlightened, ultimately creating a play about truth, the circumstances in which it is said, and the whom, why, and how of it.
   
   10) Great men doubt themselves. Most touching are the author's many retrospective and current references to his insecurities, to his doubting himself even as he made history and became President of Czechoslovakia.
   
   11) Writers live to tell the truth. This is certainly not true of most American writers who write for money, but it reflects the ideal and merits thought.
   
   12) Change the atmosphere. If you can do nothing else, strive for a moral mobilization and a change in the atmosphere of governance, at any level. We cannot even begin to conceive the magnitude of the positive changes that can occur overnight if the people begin to speak truth among themselves. Work toward a process "in which people's civic backbones (begin) to straighten again."
   
   13) Role of the intellectual. While I the reviewer would churlishly doubt that America has many intellectuals right now, the author's concluding words on the role of the intellectual strike me as very important: "...the intellectual should constantly disturb, should bear witness to the misery of the world, should be provocative by being independent, should rebel against all hidden and open pressure and manipulations, should be the chief doubter of systems, of power and its incantations, should be a witness to their mendacity."
   
   Any person concerned about the corruption and misdirection of their government and their corporate as well as non-profit entities, will be provoked and inspired by this book. It speaks to the future of human life as it might be, were we willing to stand up straight and be counted at citizen-voters, active at every level beginning with our own neighborhoods.
   
   Living in Truth: 22 Essays Published on the Occasion of the Award of the Erasmus Prize to Vaclav Havel
   Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom
   A Power Governments Cannot Suppress
   Leadership and the New Science: Discovering Order in a Chaotic World
   One from Many: VISA and the Rise of Chaordic Organization
   The Tao of Democracy: Using Co-Intelligence to Create a World That Works for All
   Society's Breakthrough!: Releasing Essential Wisdom and Virtue in All the People
   The World Cafe: Shaping Our Futures Through Conversations That Matter
   Collective Intelligence: Creating a Prosperous World at Peace

No comments about The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World.

5 comments about Puppetmaster: The Secret Life of J. Edgar Hoover.

1. I knew nothing about Hoover before reading this book, but Hack does a comprehensive job in this bio. Hoover is portrayed as a higly intelligent, organized man, who had too much power for his (or the country's) good.
   
   Hoover's need for fame was a double edged sword: It helped promote the FBI and it's intentions, but it also put public image over real substance. The most interesting parts of the book were Hoover tracking down old-time mobsters, and his obsession with Martin Luther King Jr. and his ties to the communist party.
   
   The biggest problems with the book were lack of technical details (Hack throughout mentions illegal wire taps and "black bag jobs", but never goes into details of how they were implemented), and apparent embellishment of the truth. For example, Hack goes into detail in converstaions between 2 people which there are no sources for. This is confusing and detracts from the overall authenticity of the book.
   
   Overall, this was a great book to learn about this unusual leader. I think it paints a farily balanced picture of him, not as an evil man, but of a smart control freak and media hound that was given too much power for too long.



2. This book was exactly what I wanted...to learn about J. Edgar Hoover's life. It was interesting!



3. None of these reviewers seem to have been in the circus. No mention of Judge Williaml Webster in 1950 in Hack's book. Surprise that JE was friendly to Robert Kennedy and the others in that clan, other accounts had it that they did not work together well. Hack's book id a sort of aerial view of Mr.Hoover's career.



4. Before I read this I had a reasonably good general knowledge of Hoover from reading books about 20th Century US History in general. However, I had not read a dedicated biography of Hoover himself. Some reviewers have remarked that Hack's book does not add anything really new. This may or may not be true. However, I found it to be a good read and a well paced, well written, well laid out biography of a very strange and important man.
   
   One thing that was jarring about Hack's book is that occassionally he will delve into internal dialogue that is clearly speculation on his part. For example, he will describe what Hoover was thinking as he lay in bed at night, or what he was thinking in the shower. Without sources, such as a diary entry, this is clearly just speculative embellishment. Hack also describes some personal lunch conversations that appear to be speculative as well. The speculation seems reasonable, however, and is not salacious or scandalous.
   
   In fact, one thing that probably sets this biography apart from others (not that I have read others, but I am familiar with accusations in other biographies of Hoover), is that Hack concludes that Hoover was probably not an actively homosexual man and that his strange relationship with Clyde Tolson was platonic. More accurately, he claims that there is no real evidence that the relationship with Tolson was non-platonic.
   
   Hack provides a very balanced portrait of Hoover, giving credit to his incredible drive, patriotism, and loyalty to his ideal of the American Way. Hack also presents a Hoover who was constantly self-promoting, paranoid, and who used his office for personal gain in the form of book royalties, government paid vacations, graft from "friends" and government paid improvements to his house. While Hoover's disregard of civil liberties is clear to all, Hoover's lack of financial integrity somehow left a deeper impression with this reader.
   
   I recommend this book. In understanding Hoover's long life as a civil servant, the reader gains a deeper understanding of America from before the First World War to just before Watergate.



5. This great bio by Richard Hack follows the life of the long time director of the F.B.I
   J. Edgar Hoover starting with his boyhood in the Washington area and following him through his school days and onward to the seat of power. We get an interesting look at Hoover from the days of the mid-west gangsters to hilarious rants on Martin Luther King that border on paranoia.
   
   Before when I thought of J. Edgar Hoover I always had a vague picture an evil man who indulged in activates in secret that he ruined other people for. It is interesting to see the interpretation in this book; it was not the man that was evil it was just that as time went on he used evil methods to hold on to his power.
   
   While it is tempting for some to want a watershed moment where Hoover would either "get with it" or retire it never arrives. Instead Hoover goes on becoming less and less relevant and that if nothing else can be considered a form of poetic justice.

5 comments about Enemy Combatant: My Imprisonment at Guantanamo, Bagram, and Kandahar.

1. Moazzam Begg's story is basically this: despite all the coincidences and all the evidence of Begg's involvement in al-Qaida and jihadist movements in general, he claims of innocence and toruture are to be taken at face value. Oh, sure, he and lilttle Tokyo Rose co-author write a excellent piece of fiction; dramatic, poetic, moving and completely full of horse manure.
   
   Never mind that he joined a jihadi street gang, "The Lynx" as a teen. Forget about the fact that he was arrested in 1994 after a raid and a search of his home found night vision goggles, a bulletproof vest, and extremist Islamic literature, because after all, it was just a "hobby". Forget that he has traveled to every jihadist cause celeb battle field: Chechnya, Bosnia, and Afghanistan, and that he also admits to financially supporting these causes, because after all he "swears" that he never took part in active combat. Forget that during another arrest in 2000 on a raid of the Maktabah Al Ansar bookshop, his computer was loaded with encrypted files, because the judge said he did not have to provide Scotland Yard with the decrypted information. Forget that wire transfer forms to an account of his in Pakistan were found by US and British special forces in an al-Qaida training camp near Jalalabad.
   
   And my favorite: the only reason he went to the Taliban ruled Afghanistan was to .... better have a seat ..... he claims he when to open up a school for girls. A school for girls .... unfreakin' believable.
   
   To take Begg's story at face values requires one to suspend all logic and ignore every piece of evidence that would lead any reasonable person to the conclusion that he is a violent jihadist.
   
   The only way Begg should have left Gitmo is in a coffin not a rose parade from the Muslim Brotherhood.



2. Moazzam Begg has written a memoir about an experience during three years as a "detainee" that reminds one of Franz Kafka's fiction, but he claims that these things really happened and he writes with such clarity, conviction, and telling detail that I, for one, am convinced. Whether or not he was "guilty" is a mute point because although he was accused of many things - some quite fantastic and improbable - and even "confessed" under duress, he was never charged or tried for any crime. After three years of harsh treatment and over three hundred interrogation sessions, he was merely told he was free to go with no apology, thanks or recompense.
   Although I consider myself well educated, I know little about the language, culture, history, and religion of Muslims; I have few acquaintances and no friends from that world. In this respect, I believe I am typical of most other native born senior citizen of the United States. I am indebted to Begg for lifting this veil of ignorance for me; he is an excellent ambassador. Interspersed in this narrative about what Hannah Arendt called the "banality of evil" are asides and incidents revealing information and insights valuable to my understanding. If he is an example of Islam in practice, I want to know more about it. In the midst of his ordeal he was able to reach out to many of his guards and interrogators and establish a human bond. I was reminded of Pogo's memorable statement: "we have met the enemy and he is us." If you are old enough to remember that line, you may also remember the bad old days of McCarthyism and anti-communist hysteria and have a sense of déjà vu. You might do well to pay close attention to this book as a primmer on how to survive the kind of ordeal that Begg suffered through. In the current political environment of anti-terrorist hysteria, if you give aid, comfort, or support to Begg or people like him you could well be labeled "Enemy Combatent" and suffer the same fate or worse.



3. I am only half way through this book, but I can't resit writing a preliminary review after seeing the other reviews offered here.
   
   This book is not well written. It is endlessly repetitive and the timeline of events is often vague or ambiguous. You have to wade through dozens of reconstructions of Begg's conversations with guards, most of which attempt to show how easy it was to be one up on the American servicemen that he regarded as his social inferiors. He comes across as a self promoting prig and a pansy. This seems to be the pattern for the leading jihadis, they come from relatively privileged backgrounds. They are disaffected young men from comfortable backgrounds using terrorism as a way to work out their own internal conflicts. In Begg's case he has clearly been influenced greatly by the feeling that he was never fully accepted in the UK.
   
   I was a POW in Hanoi for six years. I can understand Begg's emotional response to his imprisonment. He has gone through the same emotional roller coaster that afflicts all prisoners, but that experience is universal and not the fault of the US or anyone else.
   
   I do believe that the Administration erred seriously in not giving all these detainees POW status. One result of doing so would be that there would be no discussion of habeus corpus or detention without trial or guilt. POWs are guilty of nothing but are detained until exchanged by agreement with the enemy or the conclusion of hostilities. They have no right to expect anything else. Almost all of the mistreatment that has befallen the detainees has been generated by confusion at all levels as to what the standards of treatment should have been. The confusion came from the top and worked down through all levels. The bad decisions were urged upon the Administration by a bunch of attorneys who, to be blunt, had no idea what they were talking about. They were way out of their league. Their prime motivation was merely to provide legal rationale for what the Administration was determined to do anyway. Advice from senior experienced military leaders was disregarded by civilian leaders. This is especially galling as many of those civilians evaded service during Vietnam while the senior military leaders all earned their hard won experience in Vietnam.
   
   The US fell into the same trap the Vietnamese did by denying a hated enemy the protection of the Geneva conventions. But there are important differences. Those detained by the US got enough to eat. To bad that Begg didn't care for the food- he got enough to eat. Reports are that most Gitmo detainees have put on a lot of weight. We who were POWs in Vietnam did not have that problem. The diet was semi starvation until the last months of the war. No, it wasn't because the guards didn't have anything better. They were well fed.
   
   Begg wrote and received mail. I didn't write or receive mail for almost four years, and then it was only a small six line form several times a year. The Vietnamese did not list me and most others as captured until late in the war. Like most, I was "missing presumed captured" and my family had no idea if I was alive or dead.
   
   Begg had paper to write with and books to read. We had none of that until the last month of the war. Six years with no way to make any use of your time except what was inside your head.
   
   Begg did not get as much opportunity to exercise as he wanted. Compare that to never.
   
   Begg was closely monitored and got adequate medical attention. We had none of that. Those injured prior to or during capture were lucky to live. If they lived they were to suffer for years with bones that knit together at crazy angles because they were never set. Wounds often drained and festered for years because the dressings were never changed and antibiotics were never used consistantly. Many died of their wounds. Ask John McCain. He was left to die until the Vietnamese realized he was the son of an Admiral and might be of some use. Even so the treatment given was so clumsy that he still has a gimp arm and other less visible injuries. About 137 Americans that we are pretty sure were captured never returned and no explanation has ever come from Vietnam. They either died of wounds not treated or were tortured to death or were executed. That's a pretty substantial number when you realize that the there were less than 600 American POWs. True, some detainees have died in our custody, and there may be culpability in those cases, but we are talking about a hand full out of thousands of detainees, most of whom were released and never sent to Gitmo.
   
   I haven't come across anything yet in Begg's book that sounds like torture. Torture was universal for us and there wasn't any doubt that it was torture. What happened met every conceivable definition, even the cockeyed one used by the Administration. Some died during torture. I almost did. I am alive only by a lucky accident I don't choose to explain here.
   
   Begg's places of detention were regularly visited by the ICRC. That never happened in Vietnam.
   
   I could go on, but when Begg finds so much time to complain about the fact that some of the guards were unfriendly or even insulting, he doesn't have much to complain about. Imprisonment is not pleasant and military discipline isn't either. Begg did not seem to have any background to prepare him for either- lucky him. Bottom line to me is that his experience was a cake walk except for the fact that he was detained.
   
   Of course, the real issue is whether he should have been detained at all. The answer to that is maybe yes, maybe no. He is certainly not going to admit in his book that he was working with Al Quaida. And guess what- he was released long before the war ended. Maybe he was totally blameless, maybe he was just no longer a threat. His release may have been conditioned on a pledge of good behavior and no further participation in efforts against the US. If he had had POW status, that would be called parole, which has a long history in international law. If a POW and not paroled, he would still be detained and would have no access to any court. Keep in mind that the status of "enemy combatant" is someone who has less protection from the Geneva Conventions than a POW. The reason for that is that the detainee has been captured in the field engaging hostilities without being a part of any recognized armed force. Then consider that a POW will be detained until the end of hostilities without accusation or trial of any kind. If "enemy combatants" have less protection than POWs, how is it that they should have access to our legal system? The Administration's use of the "enemy combatant" status has been an error that helps no one. It has caused a lot of confusion even among legal scholars who should know better. Had they been kept as POWs, they could be kept until the end of hostilities with out trial, accusation or access to any court. If the US had any reason to believe any of them were guilty of crimes against the laws of war, they could still be tried for those acts. POW status does not protect anyone from criminal prosecution.
   
   I'm not happy with the way we've handled our captives in this conflict, but I challenge anyone to name any enemy we have ever faced who has done as well as the imperfect performance we have delivered this time.



4. leaving aside his guilt or innocence and the question of whether his treatment was fair or inhuman......what you won't find here is a political rant, mystical "epiphanies",philosophical speculation or reflections on Islam (except for talk among prisoners as to whether their religion permits attacks such as that of 9/11).instead we are given a calm, clear-eyed, step-by-step account of his time spent in custody. there are descriptions of the various guards, interrogators, and their rules and, finally, when he is released from solitary confinement, his fellow "detainees". he relishes reading so it is surprising that his poetry is the worst doggerel i've ever read. however the prose is clear and precise and he even includes the times when he lost his composure.



5. The author, either a pious bookseller and humanitarian or a supporter of al-Qaida, depending on who you ask, was abducted from his house in Islamabad and spent three years in the titular prisons. Begg is, by other accounts, a reasonable and charming man, and was a model prisoner who got along with several of his guards. His personality shows through in his prose, which is readable, clear, and impassioned without veering into needless vitriol (though he does not bother to hide his disdain for American culture and political ignorance). There are two ways to read the book: the unrepentant apologia of a liar who got caught funding terrorism, or the clarion call of an innocent man nearly destroyed by an unjust and unthinking system. Personally, I think there's a bit of truth to both. Begg leaves out an earlier arrest in his memoir, and even at times condemns himself from his own mouth. It isn't just a post 9/11 America that suspected him; he was investigated by MI5 as early as 1998. He also defends the Taliban, claims that he was allowed to build a girls' school under them, hints that 9/11 was known ahead of time by US authorities who let it happen, and thinks that Afghanistan was attacked because it was a "purist Islamic state" (which is ludicrous). But at the same time, the outrage of this book is that even if Begg was as bad as Bush and company said, he should have gotten a trial. The charges against him should have been made public and plain. He and all the others should have been treated with a modicum of humanity (which is not the same as respect or complacency). And certainly, US and British intelligence should have conducted interrogations with intelligence and coordination, not the repetitive, unhelpful sessions by any number of alphabet agencies vying with each other instead of sharing information. At the very least, Begg's memoir shows that the aftermath of the War on Terror is as badly handled in the prisons as it is in the White House.

5 comments about First Person.

1. The American Presidential system, for all its faults, is relatively open. Because this is not the case in Russia, any information we can get on President Vladimir Putin has to be particularly welcome. First Person, the product of six interviews conducted by Russian journalists with the Russian leader, gives us that information in Putin's own words.
   
   Putin likes beer and dislikes Chechen separatists; he is saddened by Stalin's excesses and proud of his own work in the KGB; he is sorry that the Soviet Union put Hungary and Czechoslovakia to the sword but delighted that today's glorious Russian Army is teaching the Chechens a lesson. Putin, like Mother Russia herself, is a mass of contradictions.
   
   Unlike Boris Yeltsin, Putin is a sober and industrious man. This is no bad thing in a land where vodka abuse has slashed ten years off the life expectancy of the ordinary Russian since the collapse of the evil empire. Although abstemious, Putin frankly admits that he is, at heart, a product of Soviet indoctrination.
   
   This is not that surprising from someone who worked for the KGB for 20 years and ended up taking over Yeltsin's entire secret service network. Russia today is as shadowy and secretive as it was when John Le Carre wrote his novels about Putin's KGB workmates. In those days, the KGB were our definite bad guys. Now however, the Russian Mafia have made the big league, the Caucasus are in flames and the Russian nuclear navy is more a threat to its crewmen than it is to the United States and her allies. Times have changed.
   
   Russia is in obvious need of law and order. Traditionally, law and order was achieved in Russia by generous applications of the heavy hand. Certainly, Lenin, Stalin and Peter the Great, Putin's hero, were never afraid to bite the bullet - or to use it for that matter. Putin can probably be no different. Russia is bankrupt, law and order has broken down, Yugoslavia and her other traditional allies have been brought low, neighboring Poland is on the verge of entering NATO and Islamic unrest is rising on her southern flanks. And Japan wants her Northern islands of Etorofu, Kunashiri, Shikotan, and Habomai back.
   
   What is to be done? One solution would be to sell these islands back to the Japanese for the highest attainable price and to link it to massive Japanese aid for the Russian Far East. This would help to stem the demographic and military threats China poses to Siberia. A similar deal will probably have to be done with the United States. Russia will have to scrap her nuclear arsenal in return for another king's ransom and let NATO do as it pleases in the rest of Europe. Putin will have to surrender land and power projection capabilities for hard cash.
   
   With its flanks in some kind of order, Putin could then concentrate his resources on saving Russia. But there's the rub. Putin and the problems besetting him just do not have modern Western equivalents. The nearest American President to him is Honest Abe Lincoln, who, like Putin, also worked his way up from humble beginnings. Although Lincoln also fought a major war on his Southern flank to preserve his nation's unity, he had the advantage of being able to marshal a vibrant, disciplined and modern economy behind him. Putin has no such luxury. He has his KGB contacts, his dispirited army and, as the sinking of the Kursk showed, the world's media and human rights groups breathing down his neck. Putin must now worry about media ratings as well as Chechen suicide bombers.
   
   Even Putin's moral hold on power is tenuous enough. His Presidential campaign was beset by large-scale fraud. More than 1.3 million new voters appeared between the State Duma elections on 19 December 1999 and the presidential election in March 2000. These were not "dead souls", as described in Gogol's famous novel of that name, but "new-born souls" who were given the vote and who all voted for Putin. More than 50% of Chechens, who survived Putin's bombing campaign, also voted for him. Either that or the vote was rigged!
   
   Electoral fraud is only one of his more minor headaches. Putin must use books like this to don a human face much the same way that Al Gore and George W. Bush have to display their witticisms on the Oprah Winfrey show. American wannabe Presidents can joke and cajole their way through such shows - as can Japanese leaders like the late Mr. Obuchi. They can do this because they are leaders of modern and vibrant economies. This interesting book is the beginning of such a process in Russia. However, it would be best if Putin concentrated on his nation's many economic problems. Oprah Winfrey can wait.



2. I found this book provided a much needed insight into Putin and it assists when trying to cut through the politics of popular culture. With an extremely challenging road ahead for this country it is important not to loose sight of the men who assert power



3. First person is an easy and interesting book to read. The format, question & answer, actually made the book more interesting. We only really learn what Putin wants us to learn about him. However, Putin seems to answer in an honest and straight-forward manner. A must read for anyone interested in world affairs, world leaders, or Russia.



4. Die Frage "Wer ist Mr. Putin?" bewegt seit Boris Jelzins überraschendem Rücktritt am 31.12.1999 die Welt. Die ausführlichen Gesprächsaufzeichnungen von drei russischen Journalisten aus dem Frühjahr 2000 geben nur teilweise eine Antwort auf die Frage. Sie verbergen ebenso viel, wie sie aufdecken.
   Es wird in den Interviews noch einmal eine Besonderheit Putins deutlich, die viele Beobachter schon zuvor bemerkt hatten: die bizarre Zufälligkeit von Putins steiler Karriere und seine politische Unerfahrenheit im Augenblick seiner Amtsübernahme. Dies würde im Russischen durch die Konstruktion "slutschajnyj tschelowek" (zufälliger Mensch) wiedergegeben werden. Normalerweise bedeutet im traditionell hierarchiebetonten und elitistischen russischen politischen Diskurs eine Charakterisierung als "slutschajnyj tschelowek" das Absprechen jeglicher Kompetenz für die Lösung der jeweiligen Aufgaben. Diesen Nachteil schien Putin sowohl mit seiner mythologisierten Vergangenheit als KGB-Mitarbeiter (die hier auch weitgehend im Dunkeln bleibt) als auch mit dem Image eines früheren Vertrauten des verstorbenen ehemaligen Bürgermeisters von Sankt Petersburg Anatolij Sobtschak wettzumachen. Vor allem wird in dem Buch noch einmal deutlich, wie eng die Ernennung Putins zum Premierminister und seine Profilierung in dieser Funktion mit dem Tschetschenienkrieg verbunden war. Und dies, obwohl die Anleitung der in Tschetschenien tätigen "Machtorgane" (silowye organy) an und für sich direkt dem Präsidenten obliegt. De facto schien Putin mehr noch als seine zahlreichen Vorgänger bereits vor Jelzins Rücktritt das Zepter in Rußland in die Hand genommen zu haben.
   Obwohl eine Reihe von Putins Aussagen in den Interviews in bezug auf Demokratie, Rechtsstaat und Marktwirtschaft durchaus ermutigend klingen und er sich im Großteil des Buches als ausgewogener "Mann der Tat" gibt, bleibt ein Eindruck von Unberechenbarkeit. Auf das Thema Tschetschenien angesprochen, wechselt der sonst beherrschte Putin zu apokalyptischen Visionen ("globale Katastrophe", S. 136), radikalem Isolationismus ("Wir brauchen keinerlei [internationale] Vermittler." S. 158) und missionarischem Eifer ("meine historische Mission", S. 133). Er scheint den Leser für dumm verkaufen zu wollen, wenn er sich als selbstloser "Mann fürs Grobe" ausgibt: "Ich ging [im August 1998] davon aus, daß ich [das Auseinanderfallen des Landes] selbst um den Preis meiner politischen Karriere [verhindern] muß." (S. 133)
   Die ganze Passage zum Tschetschenien-Abenteuer wirkt phantastisch: Putin beschwört das Bild eines vom winzigen Tschetschenien tödlich bedrohten Rußland. Die von ihm an anderer Stelle angemahnte "Präsumption der Unschuld" vergißt er, wenn er - ohne das Vorliegen einschlägiger Beweise, zumindest zum Zeitpunkt des Interviews - die Tschetschenen für die Bombenanschläge in Moskau, Bujnaksk und Wolgodonsk verantwortlich macht. Selbst wenn er mit seinen Anschuldigungen Recht behalten sollte, so steht die Zahl der mutmaßlich von islamistischen Terroristen getöteten russischen Zivilisten in keinem Verhältnis zu den tausenden zivilen Opfern der russischen "antiterroristischen Operationen" seit 1994. An anderer Stelle gibt sich Putin, abweichend von seinen früheren Andeutungen, ähnlich uneinsichtig, wenn es um die Rolle der NATO in den Ost-West-Beziehungen oder um den Jugoslawienkonflikt geht. Auch seine merkwürdig distanzierte Beurteilung der Tätigkeit seines früheren Ziehvaters Anatolij Sobtschak wirkt befremdlich.
   Während Putin hoffen kann, mit seinen unsensiblen Statements insbesondere zu Tschetschenien und Jugoslawien beim durch jahrelange Gehirnwäsche emotional aufgepeitschten russischen Durchschnittsbürger auf offene Ohren zu treffen, dürfte er sich mit diesem Buch in bezug auf seine aufgeklärte russische und potentielle westliche Leserschaft keinen Gefallen getan haben.



5. I am very interested in Russian politics and especially in Vladimir Putin. This book caught my eye because it is 28 hours of interviews with him about many different subjects. It was a quick read and my only complaint is that I read it so quickly. One of the more personal books I have read about Putin. I recommend it highly.

5 comments about Wellington: A Personal History.

1. Author Christopher Hibbert concentrates on the personal aspects of Wellington's career, such as his relationships with family and close friends, and skirts over any lengthy analyses of the Duke's many campaigns. The Battle of Waterloo, for instance, is covered in only a few pages and the entire Peninsula War is given short shrift. Wellington's later years as a Tory politician, however, and his subsequent fall from grace with the populace is presented in detail and makes for quite an interesting read. Portraits of Wellington's brothers and other associates are also abundant in this volume and I was surprised as to how many I've never seen before. Hibbert himself is not totally enamored with his subject and portrays him as a very reticent and reserved aristocrat with little tolerance for fools and even less sympathy for the common folk. In this regard, I don't believe Hibbert has been able to lift the mask of command off Wellington and given us the definite look into his character. Wellington was certainly a man of many contradictions and Hibbert merely presents one side of him---the cold and aloof one. Still it's a worthy book with some scattered information not found in other sources. For the best read on this man, it's probably better for one to start with Elizabeth Longford's "Wellington: Years of the Sword". Hibbert's biography would certainly be a most interesting companion piece alongside it.



2. Having just finished McCullough's John Adams, I picked this up, hoping for another wonderfully vivid portrait of a great historical figure. Instead I find a book so crammed with useless details, so choked with irrelevant facts about irrelevant characters in Wellington's life, as to be virtually unreadable. I have no objection to a high level of detail, when properly employed in the advancement of a good narrative. But I can't explain the purpose of the useless details in this book, unless to parade before us the author's exhaustive knowledge.

   I fall asleep each night after reading one and a half pages. If you're an insomniac with no real interest in Wellington, this book is for you. Otherwise, don't waste your time.




3. I have always thought of the Duke of Wellington as the Hero of Waterloo, but little else. In "Wellington, A Personal History" I learned that he was much more.

   This book is, as the title indicates, a personal history of the man, rather than a history of his times. The reader learns little of the details of Waterloo, nor does he learn much about the impact of his career on the wider world.

   Wellington's story is an interesting one. Born the younger son of lower nobility, his dukedom was earned, rather than inherited. His career was diverse. He fought for the Crown in India before his first encounter with Napoleon's armies in Portugal and Spain during the Peninsular War. The possibility of service in America during the American Revolution was mentioned, but did not occur. The glory which he won at Waterloo was merely a stepping stone to higher service.

   After the banishment of Napoleon, Wellington entered the diplomatic service in France. This, coupled with his membership in the House of Lords, led to service as Foreign Minister and Prime Minister, among many other appointments. In office, Wellington was, generally, a supporter of privilege and order. Despite his dominant conservatism, Wellington was flexible enough to adjust to prevailing necessities. Although initially opposed to Catholic Emancipation, he supported Emancipation after concluding that the defeat of Emancipation would have led to more social unrest than the issue was worth. He then not only had to persuade opinion among the Lords and Commons, but also had to overcome the strong opposition of the King in order to get Emancipation passed. This is of particular interest to me, as family legend has it that we are descendants of Daniel O'Connell, whose election to the House of Commons forced the issue. Jews, whose potential for disorder was presumably less than that of Irish Catholics, did not enjoy his support when Emancipation for them was suggested.

   During his political career, Wellington endured wide swings in popularity. At times he faced the threats of the mob as a result of his policies. He was forced to turn his home into a fortress and to carry pistols while traveling about London. Even when his popularity was at its nadir, his prestige and personal presence were sufficient to insure his safety.

   Wellington's relations with his monarchs make interesting reading. Although he held George IV and William IV in low esteem, his relationship with Victoria was warm and close. He became an intimate and trusted advisor on whom Victoria and other politicians relied as an intermediatory.

   Wellington's marriage was unhappy and distant and he became a widower at a fairly young age. These facts caused him to seek and enjoy the companionship of many women through his lifetime. These relationships and their effects on Wellington account for a large portion of this book.

   As is common among heroes, Wellington's popularity grew as his vigor and involvement in public affairs diminished. Living to an advanced age, Wellington was revered as Britain's greatest hero.

   I often gauge a book by how it makes me think beyond the covers. I compared him to American political generals. His political career was more impressive than Grant's, and of longer duration than Eisenhower's. The closest comparison may be with Washington, both as his country's greatest hero and the man to whom his country repeatedly turned in crises.

   My only disappointment in this book, as minor as it is, is that it is so personal that one gets a sense of his times only indirectly. Overall it is a good study of this major historical figure.




4. I read Dr Hibbert's biography of Horatio Lord Nelson and was so impressed by it that I ordered two more of his books. I've just finished reading this one, and I must say that, although I'd never really liked Wellington's often-characterised stiff-upper-lip persona, I found Hibbert's depiction very appealing. It reveals that, even though the marshal created a mask of aloofness and control, behind it he was charming and engaging. Wellington may not have possessed Nelson's instinctive, natural flair but he was solid, reliable, courageous, determined and a good learner. He comes a close second to Nelson as our greatest military hero.



5. Christopher Hibbert's biography of the first Duke of Wellington is, as advertised, a personal history. His focus is on the man and much less on his long career in the British Army and British political life. His finding, that Wellington was a complex man with a many-sided personality, is not a new discovery. Hibbert's contribution to a crowded field of biographies is to delve into that personality with both enthusiasm and some intellectual discipline in order to put a human face on a distant historical figure.
   
   The first half of the book covers Arthur Wellesley's unpromising youth as the seemingly less talented middle child of an Anglo-Irish nobleman and his familar military career to the Battle of Waterloo. Hibbert skims the military narrative and his analysis is sometimes uneven. For example, he makes rather overmuch of a small skirmish before the assault on Seringapatam in India as a defining experience; but slights later achievements such as Wellington's disciplined and successful defense of Portugal in 1810-1811. He does provide a close examination of Wellington's unfortunate marriage with Kitty Pakenham and his relationships with other women, without necessarily exceeding the spotty factual basis for those relationships.
   
   Hibbert is to be commended for devoting the second half of the book to Wellington's long and often neglected career as politician and public servant. Here, Wellington's well-developed military talents and Tory instincts were often less useful in the indifferent chaos of politics. His relationships, alleged or otherwise, with various women, play a prominent part in Hibbert's treatment.
   
   Ultimately, this book is less satisfying as an examination of Wellington than, for example, Elizabeth Longford's longer but more balanced teatment. Hibbert's account perhaps a little too often reads like the gossip column of the Sunday newspaper.
   
   This book is recommended to those looking for a popular biography of the Duke of Wellington, one suited to contemporary interest in the personal side of public figures.