5 comments about Jack and Lem: John F. Kennedy and Lem Billings: The Untold Story of an Extraordinary Friendship.

1. David Pitts offers a view of John F. Kennedy which is seldom found in the multitude of other books on JFK. The author had access to new material especially from the Billings material at the JFK library. However, considering all the assistance he acknowledges I can only wonder how a reference to the King of England in the late 1930s would be to "George V". Still, a book worthy of being read for its insight into aspects of JFK often overlooked.



2. David Pitts gives readers a big hint about what to expect in his introduction to this story of JFK and his lifelong best friend Lemoyne Billings: Pitts wanted to write a book about JFK but realized that it would be hard to stand out in that overcrowded field. Then he learned about Lem Billings and thought that the "untold story" of America's randiest president and his gay best friend would be the ticket.
   
   Yes, I'm a little cynical after reading this book. It is remarkable that from the 1930s on someone like JFK (Catholic, image-conscious, arguably a bit too interested in sleeping with every attractive woman he met) could sustain and value a friendship with a gay man. I didn't assume that JFK would have thrown over anyone who could potentially be a liability or who just wouldn't help him get what he wanted, but the depth of the friendship does present JFK in an interesting light.
   
   It's not an exactly untold story. I've read one other book about the Kennedys and Lemoyne Billings was a major source and character in that book. He wasn't exactly outed in it but it didn't take much reading between the lines to understand that he was gay. Pitts does offer new details about the start of the friendship but his focus is on JFK all the way.
   
   Which was quite frustrating for me. Sure, JFK was a congressman, a senator and then president and that's interesting stuff but could Pitts have spared more than a single paragraph about Billings' job? He had one. He was in advertising for decades but he might as well spent the entire time delivering newspapers for all the attention Pitts gives his job. Nor do we get a sense of Billings' romantic life. Was he in a relationship at any time? Or was he required to be the house eunuch to keep his room at the White House?
   
   Worst, when JFK is assassinated we don't get the story from Lem's perspective we get it pretty much as any American alive at the time would have found out, from television reports. His best friend is murdered and Pitts gives us nothing to understand what it meant to Lem. We just read that the next few years were tough for him. Maybe he lost himself in his work and Pitts didn't want to bore us with the details.
   
   Suddenly it's 1970 and don'tcha know, things have changed for gay men. Will wonders never cease! A whole chapter on how things have changed. Except Lem wasn't exactly throwing the first rock at Stone Wall so ... what did it mean for him? Did he come out to his colleagues at work? Did he move in with the love of his life? Did he wear louder ties? You won't find out here.
   
   Nor will you find out the details of Lem's descent into drug and alcohol addiction. Was Lem already an alcoholic before he started spending significant amounts of time with the younger generation of Kennedys? Did he lead tragic David Kennedy astray in a misguided attempt to recreate his lost friendship with JFK? Did they lead him astray? Was it more complicated than that? Pitts just mentions the "problem" in one line and that's it.
   
   In short, you won't find out much about Lem Billings. This is not a joint biography and that's a shame, in my opinion. There was a real opportunity here to contrast the lives of these two different yet similar men but Pitts gives Billings short shrift every time. If you want to learn a bit more about Lem Billings, read The Kennedys by Peter Collier. It's the book that inspired me to read this one. It's not exactly a sympathetic portrait of Billings but it's far more indepth.



3. This might have been an interesting magazine article. There was certainly not enough material to fill 250 pages. The author repeats himself constantly and pads sentences with redundancies and facts that he has already established in previous pages.
   
   As for Lem Billings, it's too bad he didn't have a life of his own.
   
   An interesting if not a compelling read.



4. I enjoyed reading Jack and Lem.
   
   Due to my age, I don't have first hand remembrances of Jack Kennedy - his life or presidency. I was a good student so I do have a learned historical perspective. Also, I am politically aware and involved so Teddy is a presence and Jackie was too.
   
   While I was familiar with many of the events of Jack's life through other reading, David Pitts made these seem new (I guess seeing them through different eyes - Lem's) and helped keep my interest. I thought Lem was presented as a compelling character. His devotion to Jack was very moving and important to reveal. I don't think the friendship could have continued for 30 years if Jack hadn't had a similar regard for Lem. I think the theory was proved that Jack had great character in keeping Lem as a friend. And Lem had every right to make that claim too.
   
   I know there have been questions about a biography of a behind the scenes individual. Since we cannot all be the great one, the one on whom the spotlight shines, I find it helpful to know who is (was) in the background. David Pitts performed a valuable service researching this book - the letters between Jack and Lem reflect on Jack as much as Lem.
   
   Obviously, not every fact or event can be included in any one work. While there seems to be a long-standing rapport between Lem and Rose Kennedy, the limited references to her (absent during Jack's illness while he was a Choate and not attending Kathleen's (Kick's) funeral) make me wonder whether Lem liked her.
   
   There appears to be an error on page 116. The photo credit is 1945, but the pages that precede the photo indicate that Lem went to the South Pacific in 1944 and while the war ended in 1945, it wouldn't be until 1946 that Lem was able to return home. He could not have been in Palm Beach in 1945.
   
   There are a few instances of David Pitts using his authorship to editorialize. These appear in parenthesis. As a resident of D.C., I agree with one of these (the District of Columbia is without full representation). Another is a reference to Tony Blair, (as the current prime minister). These parenthetical statements are temporal so if we - when we - get representation and a different person holds elected office they will date the book. Instead of editorializing, it would have been reasonable to stick to the facts only.
   
   Jack and Lem included some very touching recollections of these two men's lives, separate and together, and made me think about and better understand life in another time. I found "The Sea Change (1933 vs 1973)," the penultimate chapter, very interesting. I have sometimes wondered how much earlier I would needed to have been born to not feel comfortable today as a gay man. Most of my adult life I have been out to my family, co-workers, and neighbors. I'm also not confusing comfort with safety. I'm not naïve. Far too frequently there are press reports of hate and violence against not just gay people (the nooses of late are appalling). But not from the people I am fortunate to be surrounded in my world. I owe much to people in the generations before my own who "fought" for acceptance that I now enjoy. Again, my age limits my first-hand knowledge of events of 1969 and before. I'm grateful for the placement of this concise chapter that provides context to Lem's life and times.



5. I have read literally dozens of Kennedy biographies and Lem Billings is always a shadowy character. Whether it's a book about JFK, or RFK, or Jackie or even Christopher Lawford, Lem is mentioned often but never in depth. After a while, one begins to wonder, "who was that guy?" This book answers the question. It's an affectionate and detailed portrait. His relationship with President Kennedy was a close one, emotionally intimate, and it lasted 30 years. His relationship with the Kennedy Clan spanned generations and lasted until his death. Pitts, an author who puts a gay perspective on this story, maintains that JFK was the unrequited love of Lem's life. Just because Lem was gay, I can't make that assumption. I wonder if he could have virtually lived with JFK and Jackie if he was romantically in love with Kennedy. I think another spin is just as moving and just as powerful, they were each other's best friends and loved one another that way. It was hard on the Billings family because over the years, Lem became more Kennedy than Billings. It was daring and brave of Kennedy to remain loyal and unapologetic of his gay friend in the less tolerate 30s, 40s, 50s and 60s. And it was extraordinary for the very Catholic Kennedy women to accept Lem as completely as they did, knowing he was homosexual. The book ends with Eunice Shriver's eulogy of Lem, "Heaven is Jesus and Lem and Jack and Bobby loving one another." What a moving, and inclusive, tribute that was.

3 comments about In His Own Words.

1. This is a compilation of Nelson Mandela's speeches divided into twelve categories that run a diverse classification. The topics run the gamut of historical: "Struggle" "Freedom", "Reconciliation", "Nation Building" and "Development"; social: "Education", "Culture", "Religion", "Health" and "Children"; Cross sectional: "Heroes" and "Peace". The collection provides a one source to obtain the works of a key twentieth century person, but like any of these IN HIS OWN WORDS is repetitive and at times boring. Unless needed for a school assignment, this biographical oratory is best savored over several weeks as Mr. Mandela through his words show why he remains an inspirational influential individual whose speeches provide a deep insight into the man, the legend, and an era of transition.
   
   Harriet Klausner



2. Rebeccasreads highly recommends IN HIS OWN WORDS for those who have ever wondered how this man moved generations of people to agitate for civil rights. Settle down with this big, big book & relive the ideas that inspired us, & get a rare glimpse of the heroes from another time & another place.
   
   Because these are public speeches, there will be repetition - relax & let the words flow over you. & while most of us won't notice it, what we read from the book in no way indicates the timbre, cadence & nuances of the spoken word, so it would have been a wonderful completion had a DVD sound recording of one or two of Nelson Mandela's speeches been included.
   
   The extraordinary power of IN HIS OWN WORDS is in, once again, hearing legend's way of expressing himself, who, along with Mahatma Gandhi & Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., is one of the most articulate, courageous, & respected men of our time. The list of people who contributed their impressions is extraordinary, & illustrates how deeply Nelson Mandela changed our lives & our world.



3. IN HIS OWN WORDS is perfect reading for history buffs. There are 545 pages of speeches, addresses and statements of Nelson Mandela. When you read this collection of words by Mr. Mandela, you come away with a better understanding of this man who has dedicated his life to his belief of freedom and equality.
   
   Nelson Mandela is a prolific writer as well as a gifted speaker. There are twelve chapters in IN HIS OWN WORDS. Because of its length, I suggest that you read this book by first reading the topics that most interest you. I started with Education, Health and Culture and was moved by Nelson Mandela's compassion and his tenacity to remain focused in his one man crusade for democracy for all people. As someone who enjoys reading about history, I read the remaining chapters over several weeks and found them to be fascinating. Very much worth reading.
   
   Vannie(~.~)
   Work & Family @ BellaOnline.com
   http://www.bellaonline.com/Site/workandfamily

No comments about Gordon Brown: Past, Present and Future.

3 comments about Watergate: The Presidential Scandal That Shook America.

1. Taut summary account of the Watergate tale. This era remains in memory as a series of journalistic fragments and television images half-remembered. It is useful to redo the tape to assemble a fully coherent image and this work is an excellent short history and analysis, from the Plumbers to Deep Throat to nervous breakdown and resignation, exeunt omnes, quite a few, save but one, with no get out of jail free card. The book brings in a theme by way of diagnosis in terms of the corrosive effect of the 'imperial presidency' and the covert perversions of 'presidential will' proceeding in Cold War prerogative as progressive Machiavellian disease to the Nixonesque fatal dosage. As a mere peon here not fooled for once, one is struck by the curious impudence of incompetent villainy, and the strange fortune that a picture of rank dishonesty starting as routine business as usual as if this were all presumed is what finally led to exposure. One gets the bad feeling the other smiling faces in the photo ops are less incompetent, no proof of virtue.



2. As someone who has read several books on Watergate, I have to ask: why was this published? It contains no new research, no new interviews, no revelations. The entire book is cobbled together from other books, which means that far too many important points and details are glossed over or ignored. What's worse is Olson's prose, so flat and lackluster that it reads like a description of a Senate Appropriations Bill, rather than as the story of the greatest constitutional crisis of the 20th century. Don't be fooled by the inexplicable raves on the cover-this is barely adequate at best. For a thorough and compelling read on Nixon's downfall, read Fred Emery's Watergate instead.



3. Read this for graduate American history course.
   Keith Olson's book "Watergate" describes the events that led up to the scandal that shook the American public like nothing it had ever experienced. When the public elects officials into office they do not anticipate such scandalous happenings as the one that tore our nation apart. The Watergate scandal left the American population feeling distrustful and pessimistic at one of the most vulnerable times in this nation's history. Everyone wondered how the nation would recover from something as tragic and polarizing as Watergate.
   
   Nixon detested the media. He sought to control everything the press had to report about him and his administration. Nixon's turmoil began when he insisted that the Pentagon Papers stay out of the press. Despite his efforts, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment took precedence over what Nixon maintained was a compromise of national security. While the Pentagon Papers tainted some officials' reputations, there is no evidence to suggest the papers were a threat to national security (18).
   
   Nixon's grave concern regarding re-election in 1972 was driven by three characteristics: his concern about public image, his desire for knowledge about the plans and activities of his opponents, and his heavy reliance on public opinion polls in order to gauge public reactions and to guide future decisions (23). He relied heavily on his White House staff to obtain the information he thought necessary to attain his goal of being re-elected.
   
   Although Nixon's aides took great initiative in attempting to thwart any chance of the Democratic Party winning the election, they crossed the fine line which separates what is acceptable and what is unacceptable. The Plumbers, who were initially formed to stop unauthorized leaks of government information, overstepped their bounds which led to the Watergate scandal (18).
   
   Nixon was overwhelmingly reelected in 1972. This pushed Watergate out of the mind of the public. However, in January the defendants were on trial. Judge Sirica concluded that the defendants of the Watergate break in were withholding knowledge. He threatened stiff penalties if they did not cooperate. Resignations of Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Dean and the acting director of the FBI were the result of James McCord (chief security for CREEP)disclosing information. (CREEP) was the Committee to Re-elect the President.) McCord testified against dean to receive a lesser sentence. Dean turned over names and as a result wanted immunity and continued to give information.
   
   The Washington Post was the major paper that covered Watergate. Watergate played no role in the 1972 elections. People did not yet equate Nixon to Watergate. The journalists reported that CREEPfunds helped pay for Waterate.
   
   The Watergate break-in was initiated by the Plumbers with G. Gordon Liddy, who had been hired by John Mitchell, at the helm. Although Nixon was unaware of the events at the time they occurred, he did learn of the burglary shortly thereafter. His reluctance to handle the scandal at the beginning resulted in the beginning of the end. President Nixon was so driven by secrecy that it clouded his judgment of right and wrong. When the major participants, John D. Ehrlichman, H. R. Haldeman, John Mitchell, Charles Colson, Robert C. Mardian, and Gordon C. Strachan, had to share information with President Nixon he should have immediately done the right thing.
   
   Instead, the cover-up began. President Nixon was in complete denial. He managed to encumber the Watergate investigation for two years with his refusal to cooperate and turn over the necessary information. By hindering the process, President Nixon only hurt the nation by not allowing the scandal to come to a close. Furthermore, the American population saw the President behave in such a manner which tarnished the image of the highest position in the nation.
   
   Due to President Nixon's poor judgment, eighteen of his aides went to prison and he narrowly avoided impeachment. His reliance on advisors and his own poor judgment cost him the presidency. Had he cooperated initially with the judicial system the ramifications and embarrassment would have not been as damaging. The fact that President Nixon never believed he did anything wrong crippled the government. The American people lost faith in the government because no one would have suspected the nation to be susceptible to such a crime. Olson's interpretation appears unbiased and gives a complete account of the events that led to President Nixon's downfall. His inclusion of what the media believed enhanced the book by explaining to the reader what the public opinion was in regards to the Watergate scandal. He continued to include the media's reaction to the events as they progressed, which showed how the public's reaction changed as the scandal continued. I found this to be an important aspect of the book because it provides the reader with a complete view of every angle of the Watergate scandal and demonstrates how much it affected the nation.
   
   As a graduate student in philosophy and history, I recommended this book for anyone interested in American history, and Watergate history.

No comments about Abigail and John: Portrait of a Marriage.

5 comments about Murdering Mr. Lincoln: A New Detection of the 19th Century's Most Famous Crime.

1. Charles Higham has long seen conspiracy theories under his bed. For most of us, going to bed means counting sheep and drifting off into a restful sleep, but for Higham it must be an entirely different experience. Perhaps his sheep all wear swastika armbands on their legs, baaing in syncopation with goose-stepping spies on their way to conspire with their Hollywood friends. Now, after a long and fruitless career hacking out spy laden fiction about Hollywood's brightest stars, he turns his attention to Abraham Lincoln. The switch from Hollywood figures to political icons is consistent with Higham's long rumored belief that every celebrity was not only a Nazi spy, but a closet homosexual intent on destroying the pillars of democracy. No matter - Higham's book is without merit. This book is no more than a long supposition bracketed by historical gobbledygook and pounds of manure shoveled up from Higham's seemingly endless supply of self-created excrement. Surely, he needs some fiber in his diet, and a backbone to go with it. A soul would help, too. But we need to keep in mind a fundamental truth when considering Charles Higham's long and lucrative career - he has the right to publish what he wants. Freedom is everything, and we need to accept that, even if it means that any deranged fool raised in a leper colony by a homosexual Franciscan monk from Mars can bellow about the conspiracy that occupies his dreams. Yes, they shoot horses and diseased cattle, but not people, and so the diseased are allowed their bellowing. Such people have the strength of their beliefs, and no dialogue from the rest of us will convince them that they are wrong. We should pity them. In any event, it appears obvious that Higham has reached the end of his career. He will still publish, of course, but he is much reviled. His "lack of journalistic integrity" (as historian Tony Thomas so aptly stated) is well known. At best, we should all pray that one day such illnesses are defeated and that one day Charles Higham will finally rest in peace.



2. Those interested in the politics behind the war will find Higham's work at times fascinating and horrific. The book really brings home what happened apart from the battlefront. As revered as President Lincoln is today, he made some decisions that would make 21st century citizens of a democracy cringe. Alternatively, Lincoln's detractors and political opponents did the same. It seems unfathomable to me now that Lincoln could have been hated by so many, and this book really pierces the veil of the myth surrounding his presidency and the unity of all those in the Union.

   When one really ponders what Lincoln did - suspending the writ of habeas corpus, prosecuting publishers printing unfavorable information, trading with South, etc. - one realizes that Lincoln - just like everyone - is neither complete hero nor complete villain - but a convoluted mix of gray areas.

   But a reflection on Lincoln is not an intended objective of this book. Nor does it foster an argument that Lincoln deserved death. The focus here is the plot to de-throne Lincoln and make peace with the South, hatched by shadowy Confederate sympathizers, fringe Confederate spies, the European aristocracy, and some out-and-out crazies, like the chief villain George Sanders and assassian John Wilkes Booth. This objective is fulfilled in excruciating detail.

   Also deeply disturbing was the revelation of the "Young Americans" Hitler-youth-type organization, the assertion that Stephen Douglas planned for a military coup d'etat over Lincoln, and the whole affair between Confederate exiles conspiring with British/Canadians to incite war with England.

   A fascinating story is marred by the author's continuous barrage of trivial details. He throws so many names, places, and things at the reader that even the most astute Civil War scholar would be overwhelmed.

   The book reads like a novel and while that is good for easy reading, one has to wonder how the author dug up so much granular information 150 years later. The source notes - a paltry half-dozen pages at the end - do nothing to convince me that the author did in fact thoroughly validate the accuracy of his assertions. Personally, while I think the book does contain many facts, I have to consider it more a historical novel, like Gore Vidal's "Lincoln", than a history. "Dark Union", another recent and similar book on Lincoln during the war, is much better annotated.




3. The editorial review says it all:
   
   Conspiracy theorists and Civil War buffs may want to take a gander, but overall this book adds little to our understanding of the assassination.



4. A well written book with a flair for the extreme. The author has taken numerous facts about the assassination and it's particpants and stretched them with assumptions that are conceivable but not proven. A wonderful story, but a disclaimer should be attached allowing readers to understand that some facts have been stretched to offer the story of a dynamic conspiracy, a thrilling hunt and final solution. A great read and it would certainly make a great movie, ala Otto Eisenschiml.



5. As usual, when I read anything written by Mr. Higham, I come away with many more questions than answers. And I didn't find it so easy to read because there were so many seemingly unnecessary characters. I always wonder where he got all of this revealing new information. No I read his books as a work of fiction rather than the truth. In that sense, they are simply amusing.

3 comments about Nehru: The Invention of India.

1. Hits all the high points. Tharoor's occasional protestations of objectivity about Nehru ring hollow; this book is objective only in tone. Nehru's contradictions are glossed over as if merely a source of amusement, but Jinna is treated as a pathological cynic, and the British are alternately inept and reactionary. Tharoor's treatment of Churchill is as harsh as it is shallow. This book reads very quickly, and is good for people who want a quick bio of Nehru. For people who want a real examination of the man, look elsewhere.



2. Shashi Tharoor's latest book is a most enjoyable interpretive history of Nehru's amazing life. I felt as if Tharoor was travelling with me as I read in trains and planes, talking directly to me. He brought me to tears when Nehru died -- very hard to do using non-fiction. A delightful book -- warm, generous and globally aware, it's a wonderful reading experience. Tharoor gives us a better context for understanding a contradictory statesman, and made me wonder what Nehru and the freedom fighters would think of India and the world today. My only criticism: it's too short!



3. An excellent and much needed book. The major works on Nehru were written several decades ago. I will use this in my graduate
   course. It is written in a clear and straight forward style
   that makes it easy to read. I particularly appreciate Tharoor's
   picture of the power of Nehru in India and internationally.
   Nehru's tremendous influence on the decolonial movement is
   often forgotten today. If there is any weakness, I would have
   liked Tharoor to have explored more Gandhi's influence on Nehru.

1 comments about A Reporter's Lincoln (Bison Book).

1. This edition is a modern update and expansion of memories and tales about Lincoln gathered starting in 1886 by Walter B. Smith then chief of the Washington bureau of the St. Louis Globe-Democrat. Even at that time the legends about Lincoln had begun to grow. Understandably what people remembered, or were willing to present, probably portrayed themselves in a favorble light and presented themselves as closer to Lincoln than they may actually have been. The author himself was not above presenting material from other sources as interviews he had personaly conducted. Keeping that in mind the book offers glimpses of an elusive historical figure from a variety of points of view from people who knew him. Editor Michael Burlingame does an admirable job of informing the reader of the limitations inherent in this kind of gahering oral history. There is a fascination to reading about Lincoln as known by political friends and opponents, relatives and fellow attorneys, merchants and those who knew him when they were children.

3 comments about Private Lives/Public Consequences: Personality and Politics in Modern America.

1. Chafe has produced a highly literate, totally engaging collection of eight essays on six recent presidents plus Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy. As the author freely admits, these essays do not reflect new research or close examination of primary sources. Yet they do capture the heroic essence of each man (and they are all men, despite cameo appearances by Eleanor and Hillary) and they persuasively argue that each was deeply affected by a particular and profound personal crisis in his early years which, if properly understood, could have predicted how each would respond to the difficult choices they faced once in office. Perhaps Chafe is a better historian than psychologist but after reading this book it is hard to believe that the public has no reason or right to know not just the politics of candidates for high office but their most personal histories.



2. I will admit this book left me confused.
   
   It is not that William H. Chafe failed to articulate his point. Quite the contrary, the history professor and former faculty dean at Duke University communicates his theme clearly and concisely. His premise - that childhood events mold and influence the direction, personality and life choices of our national leaders - is an intriguing thought.
   
   It is, however, not history. Historians - and Dr. Chafe is a distinguished one -
   spend their hours probing primary sources for clues of how social movements swept up individuals and used them in their dialectic march towards a preordained future. Once done with their research, historians then hide their conclusions in books and articles distinguished by long couplings of footnote-festooned, incomprehensible complex-compound sentences.
   
   That is not this book. There are no primary sources; there are no footnotes. You can read these provocative essays and understand them. The author admits it is a departure from his academic training and practice.
   
   Based on his reading and observations, Dr. Chafe offers his thoughts on how the personal lives and political fortunes of Eleanor and Franklin Roosevelt, Martin Luther King, Jr., John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Hilary and Bill Clinton intersected to shape the United States.
   
   For the moment, I will discount the fact that the author was three years old when Franklin Roosevelt died. This book is a fascinating read. As a professor of modern American history, I have no doubt Dr. Chafee has read many books on his subjects. His observations deserve a thoughtful consideration. It is difficult to document the psychological influences on a life. Nevertheless, Dr. Chafee produces poignant portrayals of vision and paranoia; moral strengths and weakness; sincerity and artificiality.
   
   I admit my Hegelian biases. They grow stronger as I age. Yet, I do not find it a stretch to believe the Muse of history recruits individuals it has equipped with the tools and experiences it required to continue its movement.
   
   History or not, this book will spark a new appreciation of the joys and heartaches of our country's recent past.



3. not for the casual reader, a book of facts, the reader draws their own conclusions of the impact upbringing has on leaders.

No comments about The Inner Life of Abraham Lincoln: Six Months at the White House.