2 comments about The Kennedy Mystique: Creating Camelot.

1. This book is a Keeper for all J.F.K Fans the world over. I love the excellent visuals and the superb writing from the trendsetters of that era. This book makes you feel as if you are transported back to the early 1960s and you feel as if you are witnessing history from a front seat balcony. Many of the photographs have never been seen before. Pick up this book for your Library today and relive those brief, shining moments in history!
   
   Noel Serrano
   The J.F.K. Group-2007
   
   [...]



2. The Kennedy Mystique is a wonderful book. My 7 year old Daughter likes to look at the pictures. My Exwife gave me heck because at school my 7 year old Daughter said she was a relative of President Kennedy and none of her classmates believed her and told the teacher she was making up stories. I have computer printouts from Ancestry dot com showing the relationship between my Great Great Grandfather David Doughty Morgan 1851 to 1915 and President Jack Kennedy. Like the early Christians were persecuted I was told I was crazy at my Church for saying I was a blood Kennedy realtive until I brought in the Computer printouts proving this to be true. The coauthor of this book mister Dallek makes the writing about the Kennedy family Prestigious. Dont just look at the pictures, read about Americas greatest Family the Kennedys. My prior reviews about President Kennedy being alive have been deleted. Lets see what happens this time. I invoke freedom of speech for keeping this Amazon review on the internet. Write a response to whether you believe Brad Morgan (Kennedy) is the real American Shadow Vice President a tradition that goes back to 1774 and the Continental Congress and is Constitutional.

5 comments about You're Not Stupid! Get the Truth: A Brief on the Bush Presidency.

1. ...And Its People. That's W's latest (and greatest)"Bushism" stammered as he sighned a 400 billion plus military appropriation to further the neocon cause. Freudian slip? Could be. Just an idiot? That's a given. Not enough functioning synapses after years of alcohol and cocain abuse? All of the above? Thought the folks who acquited OJ Simpson were stupid? They ain't got nothin in terms of putting emotion ahead of reason over your average Bush supporter. Decent book. More ink must be spilled on the neocons, how they've come to power, and the damage they've caused to this country. I thinks this is the last one I'll buy that exposes this imbecile. One must conserve monetary resources in the Bush economy. One never knows when one will find themselves between jobs these days. Remember when we were a prosperous nation at peace back in 2000? Ahhh the good old days. Yeah, think that's it. No more pol books. I'm passed the point of being pissed off. Just go to the polls in November, and hope the independents see the light. Oh, yes, and cross your fingers that the electronic voting machine tallies your vote.



2. You're Not Stupid! Get The Truth: A Brief on the Bush Presidency is an unabashed wake up call to what President Bush and his "neocons" are doing to the country. From a hyper-focus on testing children that ignores real problems with public education - Bush's own home state of Texas has an abysmal graduation and college attendance rate, partly in due to pressures to have substandard achievers drop out rather than bring down test scores - to the lies surrounding the war in Iraq, to how much warning the Bush administration had before the 9/11 attacks, to the overwhelming array of tax favoritism for the wealthy in Bush fiscal policy and more, You're Not Stupid! Get The Truth blunty exposes lies as lies. A brutally honest, well-researched book that debunks common myths and sharply warns readers to be vigilant against being manipulated, and strongly recommended reading for all eligible voters.



3. Obviously, not enough people read You're Not Stupid before the 2004 election, otherwise Cox's Brief on the Bush Presidency might have helped overcome the rigged computerized voting in Ohio and minority voter intimidation in Florida to give the Supreme Court yet another chance to anoint a president over the will of the people.
   
   The Downing Street Documents have now proven that Bush stole another election by lying to us about the origins of the Iraq War. He, and only he, is responsible for the resulting deaths and maiming of thousands of our finest young women and men. Moreover, every day we allow him to remain in office, we, all of us are responsible for the daily blood bath in Iraq and the harm Bush's War is inflicting on the Iraqi people.
   
   Every day, American television and newspapers conclusively establish that Bush utterly failed to avoid the deaths of thousands of Hurricane Katrina victims before it struck and stupidly failed to care for its victims in its aftermath.
   
   What more do the American voters need than the images of the president riding his new bicycle, strumming a guitar, playing golf, and, in the midst of a horrible tragedy, bragging about the good times he had in New Orleans during the days when he was "drinking and carousing and fumbling around?"
   
   Those who have been fooled once or twice by the smirking chimp currently on display in the White House zoo should get a copy of You're Not Stupid. As a compilation of all other books in the genre at the time it was published, it will remain a valuable reference book in the future. It's a quality edition and is probably the best buy on the market.
   
   You're Not Stupid chillingly predicts the future if the voters fail to Get the Truth: "Some day, when our children's grandchildren look back at this moment, they will see the world we live in as it is, not the imaginary perceptions our president and his gang of zealots have attempted to pass off as the truth. History will judge us, not by what we believe, but by what we do. Awareness will be presumed, and ignorance will be no defense. If we continue to allow the commission of horrible crimes against others on hour behalf, without protest, our names shall be joined in the indictment engraved upon the monument of our civilization. Will it be with pride that our descendants read the chronicle of our lives or will they be filled with shame?"



4. William Cox is a lawyer who specializes in criminal investigation. He currently serves as Senior Trial Deputy for the State Bar of California. Cox previously worked as a prosecutor, a public interest lawyer, and a law enforcement policy analyst.
   
   Cox tackles the Bush Administration in the manner of a skilled prosecutor. His style is reminiscent of that of Vincent Bugliosi, also a former California prosecutor, in "The Betrayal of America" when he examined the egregious theft of the 2000 presidential election, taking particular aim at the United State Supreme Court majority that stopped an ongoing recount in Florida.
   
   While Bugliosi presented an excellent brief in terms of that groundbreaking election, Cox covers it as well as what led up to Bush's selection, extending forward to a period in 2004 nearing the end of the first term of the Cheney-Bush Administration.
   
   Cox recognizes, as does John Nichols, who wrote about the person really in charge, that Dick Cheney and the neoconservatives are the driving force in the Bush Administration. He examines the sordid route that brought the neocons to power. Cox explores the systematic character demolition of John McCain in South Carolina and the ensuing general election campaign when Al Gore was hideously misrepresented as untruthful while the smears and deception pattern actually came from the Bush campaign.
   
   It is noted how Gore was misquoted on stating that he had invented the Internet and criticized unfairly over stating the name of the wrong person at FEMA during a debate with Bush, a common error under the circumstances, and how elements of the media falsely accused the Democratic candidate of claiming to be the subject of Erich Segal's "Love Story" when all he did was react to a story that appeared in a Nashville newspaper.
   
   Meanwhile the Bush campaign, aided by a helpful mainstream media, took the aforementioned and made a case for Gore being less than truthful. Character was made an issue when Bush had on his resume a failed Texas oil venture in which he appears to have violated federal law and could have gone to prison if tried and convicted. He was spared further investigation by the Justice Department when his father, then President George H. W. Bush, terminated the effort.
   
   There was also the matter of going AWOL from the Texas Air National Guard, which went uninvestigated by the mainstream media, and his reckless lifestyle that saw him drink heavily until the age of 40 and reputedly take drugs as well. When an independent investigator learned about Bush's drunk driving arrest conviction and broke the story, this was denounced in many circles as a somehow unethical act by some of the same sources that looked the other way during the slimy South Carolina Republican Primary.
   
   The title of Cox's book of "You're Not Stupid" is a theme he uses to denote how campaign operatives with huge advertising war chests financed by lobbyists have combined with commentators and journalists beholden to those same corporate interests to create false impressions, using 30-second television advertising to distort reality. By using such tactics millions of Americans voted for George W. Bush in 2000 on the basis of character.
   
   Cox warns Americans not to be fooled and study the issues themselves, hence the twin declarations of "you're not stupid" and "get the truth." The warning that Cox delivered can be analyzed alongside what millions of American voters did in the 2004 election.
   
   Many voters revealed in exit polls that they voted for Bush because he made them feel safer and that they believed that Saddam Hussein actually possessed weapons of mass destruction. There was also a strong belief on the part of so many that there was a link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.
   
   The author hones in on Bush early, delivering a zinging analysis in the first paragraph of the first chapter, which is entitled "Who's Bush?" Cox writes:
   
   "How is it that a lying and denying alcoholic, with arrests for theft and disturbing the peace and a conviction for drunk driving; one born with a silver spoon in his mouth, with no empathy for the plight of ordinary people; an inarticulate spoiled brat who just didn't get the lessons of a good education; a chronically failed businessman who's never earned anything on his own; and a high school cheerleader who avoided military service in Viet Nam by joining the National Guard and then going AWOL-gets himself elected as President of the United States? Well, you can be darn sure he didn't exactly tell us the truth about his background."
   
   We are taken through Bush's first term as the disastrous tax cuts skewed toward the rich are examined. Cox also skewers Bush on his education proposals and his bizarre behavior during 9/11, along with that of Cheney, culminating with refusal to testify under oath at an official 9/11 commission convened only after pressures built to the point where the Cheney-Bush duo could no longer prolong such action.
   
   Cox concurs with authors who believe that the official account released by the officially sanctioned commission does not answer vital questions pertaining to 9/11. He also believes strongly that an independent commission needs to be convened.
   
   Cox's lawyer's analytical tools are never sharper when he approaches the subject of Bush and Cheney as violators of international law, as well as their repeated violations of the Bill of Rights alongside the efforts of willing Attorney General John Ashcroft.
   
   This former prosecutor concludes that Bush, Cheney and other members of the Administration violated international law as well as engaging in unconstitutional acts in leading the country to war in Iraq.
   
   The pattern of deception spearheaded by the full court press to conflict launched by neoconservatives within the Administration such as Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle is examined with microscopic clarity by a veteran attorney who can spot and document illegality when he sees it.



5. 
   After reading Hare's review I do not have anything to add other than to say that this book is a wonderful compelemnt to "The Unauthorized Biography of George Bush" by Webster Tarpley, whose book on 9/11 I also recommend very highly.
   
   As documented by this book, this attorney and author, George Bush is one of the most crooked, inept, and deceitful people ever to serve in the Presidency. By no means alone, he never-the-less takes mendacity to a new level, and this author is to be congratulated for his painstaking effort to document the facts--I only regret that we could not reach enough Americans in 2004 to prevent a second four years.

3 comments about Reagan's Disciple: George W. Bush's Troubled Quest for a Presidential Legacy.

1. Lou Cannon, journalist and historian, is one of Ronald Reagan's most prolific and reliable biographers (I think his "President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime" is still about the best bio yet written of our 40th president). Carl M. Cannon is a resourceful and clear-eyed reporter in the Washington of Bush 43. Together, they have produced an interesting book that gives us some valuable insights into the motivations and actions of the Bush presidency. It also, perhaps unexpectedly, shines a fascinating light on Ronald Reagan.
   
   For years -- before, during, and after his time in the Oval Office -- Ronald Reagan was portrayed by his opposition as a dim ideological cowboy. In recent years, however, he has been granted a Strange New Respect (as R.E. Tyrrell might put it) by the Left -- in part, no doubt, to try to seize a bit of his own still-strong popularity with the American people for their own purposes, but also to use as a cudgel with which to beat the newer, dimmer ideological cowboy, George W. Bush. To use the inevitable cliché -- so inevitable that even the Washington Post Book World review quoted on this page made use of it -- "George W. Bush, you're no Ronald Reagan."
   
   It's one of the many paradoxical features of today's political scene that it's now the Left who sees in Ronald Reagan a nuanced, deliberative statesman, while the Right (or at least the neocon, Bushian right) honors a one-dimensional, caricatured memory of who Reagan was and what he believed. One of the most valuable parts of "Reagan's Disciple," I thought, was the Cannons' portrayal of Reagan -- accurately, I believe -- as a leader far more practical, realistic, and conciliatory than ideological; far less willing to put American lives on the line or rely on military muscle than anyone thought; and far more willing to draw on a broad range of advisors and opinions than is his ostensible philosophical heir, President Bush.
   
   I found the most interesting parts of "Reagan's Disciple" to be the comparison of the two presidents' approach to warmaking. But the authors also discuss in some detail Supreme Court confirmation battles, the politics of White House personnel decisions, and what it means to be a "decisive" leader. There's also an interesting exploration of the validity of George W. Bush's current preferred presidential comparison, himself with Harry Truman: scorned and unpopular when he left office, but ultimately vindicated by history and honored in the memory of the American people. The Cannons find this comparison also ... imprecise.
   
   As this primary season has shown, Ronald Reagan is still a touchstone of Republican politics. As the Cannons and other historians have noted, if all the presidents since 1945 operated in the shadow of FDR, the presidents since 1989 have operated in the shadow of Ronald Reagan -- a shadow that seems likely to stretch, like a movie gunslinger's at sunset, for a considerable time yet. With George W. Bush having so explicitly claimed the Reaganite mantle, a book like "Reagan's Disciple" was both necessary and inevitable. That it was done so well, and by two writers so well-qualified to draw conclusions, is something to be thankful for. With so many books written about the Bush presidency, from so many different directions and viewpoints, how can you tell which ones are worth reading? Here's my helpful hint: this is one of the good ones.



2. Lou Cannon, author of several books about Ronald Reagan, has co-written "Reagan's Disciple", with his son Carl. A highly insightful, yet somewhat uneven book, it nonetheless makes some great comparisons between our nation's fortieth and forty-third presidents. Guess which one fares less well?
   
   The authors state in the preface that this is a book with "a fair and balanced point of view". In many respects it is, but it's hard not to notice (at least with the elder Cannon) a sense of awe regarding his subject. Granted, Reagan's star has been rising in past years and the Cannons take full measure of it. That legacy is still in dispute with many of us, but this offering certainly makes Bush look inadequate in contrast. If Reagan brought the Republican party into unanimity a generation ago, Bush has almost singlehandedly squandered it, as the authors point out.
   
   Much of "Reagan's Disciple" deals with war, beginning with a look at Woodrow Wilson's idealism, and subsequently how Reagan and Bush looked at war differently. Reagan, ever cautious about foreign entanglements, would almost certainly not have invaded Iraq as Bush did, much to everyone's chagrin today. The narrative of the Cannons is crisp but the subject matter tends to bounce around leaving a less than unifying story line. Yet the contrasting style of Reagan and Bush is the most fascinating part of the book and the authors tell this one well. While Reagan sought broad consensus and a balanced view, Bush has retained a small coterie of yes-men with hardly divergent views.
   
   As we reach the end of the tragic Bush years, "Reagan's Disciple" is a reminder of the bookends of the Republican domination since 1980. The "Morning in America" brand of Ronald Reagan has been wiped clean by the miasma of the past several years. As the authors rightly suggest, when Bush comes on tv people either change the channel or put on the mute button...Americans stopped listening to him a long time ago. People will invoke Reagan's name for years to come, but Bush's legacy, undoubtedly, will be something quite different.



3. It is impossible for anyone to say that Ronald Reagan would not have gone to war after the bombings on American soil and murder of American civilians on September 1, 2001.
   The 9-11 attacks against the United States were UN-PRE-CE-DENTED.
   To all of Bush's critics I just want to ask, "What the hell is a president supposed to do when his country has been attacked?"
   Call on the U.N?
   Settle in for some long "talks"?
   Get real!

5 comments about Winston Churchill: A Life (Penguin Lives).

1. Publisher's Weekly is entirely mistaken, in their comments above, in suggesting that Sir Winston Churchill once belonged to the Labour Party.
   
   He never did, of course.
   
   Churchill did, however, cross the floor to join the Liberal Party, often making common cause there with his Liberal ally David Lloyd George. He left the Liberals and returned to the Conservative Party (at first, as a "Constitutionalist") in the 1920's...
   
   Alan D. Hyde



2. Let me make clear at the outset that I am no historian. Indeed, I wouldn't even qualify as an amateur historian. I am just your average 30-something fairly ignorant reader living a period of love for more or less recent history. Given this premise, I found this little book quite perfect for what I was looking for.
   
   This is a short, entertaining, and VERY well written biography of one of the greatest men in the 20th century. Because of the serious limits of my knowledge on the subject, I certainly cannot judge on the accuracy of the reports. However, to the best of my knowledge, the author is considered a reputable WWII historian. Indeed I liked this book so much that I also purchased his history of WWII. You can read this book in a day, and it will entertain you like a good novel, while also informing you as few novels would do.
   
   I would not pay too much attention to those reviewers that complain about this book not delving into Churchill's shortcomings as a man or as a politician. This is a very small book, about 190 small-format pages. You can hardly expect a comprehensive treatise from such a book. Also, I suspect that emphasizing Churchill's shortcomings would be like emphasizing Hitler's moments of tenderness with his lovers or with some German children during the Nazi regime. I mean, they surely happened, but it's not what you want to spend pages on, if you have only limited space to devote to the topic, isn't it? Besides, even if the Churchill that emerges from this book is certainly a truly great man, he does not emerge as a perfect great man. To me that was enough, and I am glad I read this book.
   
   I am grateful to the author, and I highly recommend it to anyone looking for a short, beautifully written biography of this man, to whom I certainly owe something...



3. Doubtless this biography is insufficient to really understand Churchill, but for those who are fairly ignorant of the man, it provides a useful quick sketch, and perhaps a jumping off point for further reading.



4. In 1895 when his father died, the sickly and indifferent 21-year-old military cadet Winston Churchill was flat broke, the legacy of a father who was a compulsively extravagent wastrel.
   
   Lord Randolph had been syphilitic since early youth. His mother, American-born Jennie Jerome whose father was a stockbroker and part-owner of 'The New York Times', was always attracted to men other than her husband or her sons (Winston, born 1874, and John Spencer, born 1880). In modern terms, they were trailer trash; in Phoenix, Sheriff Joe would have set aside a bunk in his tent-city jail for Winston.
   
   But, instead of slums, Winston was born and brought up in Blenheim Palace, built 1704-22 and still one of the great estates of England. American ex-presidents get palatial libraries as their memorials; the British rewarded their leaders with mansions and great estates. Blenheim Palace was one of the finest, far better than the estates later awarded to Nelson and Wellington.
   
   Perhaps it was the milieu of Blenheim Palace, but Churchill matured into a man absolutely convinced of the majesty of the British virtues of patriotism, loyalty, courage and fair play. For him, being British meant manliness, courage, tenacity and ultimate moral decency. It resonated with the vigorous American spirit of Theodore Roosevelt and the beauty of the strenuous life.
   
   President George Bush is reported to keep a bust of Churchill in the Oval Office; perhaps as a reminder of the complete contrast to himself. Bush ducked the Vietnam War in the Texas Country Club Air Guard; Churchill eagerly sought war, even though he hated it.
   
   Like Ulysses S. Grant, Churchill was a gifted wordsmith instead of a stumblebum. He free-lanced as a journalist while serving as a British officer and was sometimes earning 20 times his military pay. He never stopped learning, he wanted facts, order, reason. His mother sent him crates of books while he was on duty, and he devoured them all.
   
   Gen. Sir Herbert Kitchener described him as a "medal-hunter" and "self-advertiser" who was "super-precocious" and "insufferably bumptious." It was a good assessment. But, the public loved his books and even the Prince of Wales praised him. Whatever one thinks of Churchill, his career and successes are due to his own effort, intelligence, work and nerve.
   
   In brief, this is the story of a man who might well have ended up as a Soho souse, but instead became the greatest man of the past century. He did it through his own efforts, not because of Daddy's friends, money or ability to pull strings.
   
   This book defines the character of a great man.



5. I've never been a big fan of Winston Churchill, but after reading esteemed historian John Keegan's succinct biography of the man, I must say that I like AND respect him just a little bit more. Keegan himself confesses that he never thought much of old Winston until he stumbled across an old recording of his speeches (in NYC of all places) and realized what a gifted and inspirational orator and leader he was. He led his beloved Britain through her darkest hours in modern history, to a victory that was anything but assured. The people seemed to genuinely love him, and his sentiment was seemingly mutual.
   
   His years as Prime Minister during WW2 are the most well known, but Churchill led an amazingly full life, and his life of public service began way back in the late 19th century. Keegan describes how the young Winston, who did poorly in school, but had an undeniable intelligence, educated himself in politics, history and the English Classics. He was a romantic who was in love with his small island nation, and he dedicated his life to it. He was a brave soldier who served in numerous wars, including WW1, and while it would be fair to say he was a little too fond of war, he was no different from the average English officer of the time in this regard. In my eyes, his major fault was his hypocrisy. It just seems hard to reconcile his staunch imperialism with his constant talk about the virtues of freedom and liberty, and how Britain was the main proponent of such things. I would have liked for Keegan to address this point a bit more, but for such a short biography, I can let it slide.
   
   I was intrigued to learn that Churchill and IRA founder Michael Collins were on friendly terms and greatly admired each other. In fact, Churchill apparently had a "gut sympathy for fighters" which is why he had more respect for the Irish and Boers of South Africa than he did for Ghandi and his passive movement in India.
   
   Anyways, the book is extremely well written and entertaining, and I found it to be an overall excellent introduction to the life of one of the most important figures of the 20th century. 4.5 stars.

2 comments about The Modern American Presidency.

1. This book is both erudite and accessible, and it's an excellent survey of the modern Presidency, which Gould, a respected University of Texas historian, points out has been transformed in roughly the past hundred years from an intimate, folksy, at times nearly one-man operation into an unwieldy, unworkable, and dangerously out-of-touch apparatus that has far less to do with running the country than it does with raising cash, making meaningless appearances and feeding the media, and getting re-elected to a Constitutionally-allowed (and historically-mandated) second term that in most cases is a failure compared with the first term. (Can you think of a President since Franklin Roosevelt whose second term was more successful than the first?)

   Other reviewers of this book have pointed out that Gould's position on the evolution of the presidency is a paradox, since in order to be effective, the modern president must be a master of the perpetual campaign, and yet the perpetual campaign is what Gould believes is the bane of the presidency, transforming it into a position of celebrity and spectacle rather than one of leadership and policy. However, that is a paradox that needs to be examined more deeply in a philosophical context; this book is a survey, not a political science text, and Gould gets points for raising the paradox, which is a provocative one, in the first place.

   The book is full of anecdotes and lucid detail about the modern presidents, along with Gould's snappy and precise evaluations of the strengths and weaknesses of each, and the factors in the broader political culture of each man's term in office that changed the presidency forever. He is not particularly partisan in his political stance; he has good and bad to say about each president. There are many surprises in this short but rewarding book, and there are excellent suggestions for further reading at the back.




2. This is a briskly paced overview of one hundred years' worth of presidents, from McKinley to Clinton (with a very brief mention of George W. Bush). That Gould starts with McKinley is notable, for historians have tended to place the origins of the modern presidency with his successor, Theodore Roosevelt. In tracing the development of the presidency as an institution, Gould follows a handful of key themes: (1) the rise of mass media and its effects on the presidency; (2) the rise of continual campaigning; (3) problem-ridden second terms; and (4) the decline of parties and its consequences. Only the fourth receives unsatisfactory treatment: Gould mentions it as a theme and never really follows up on it, and while parties as nominating and institutional forces may have declined with the spread of primaries, they surely play a larger role in today's polarized political atmosphere.
   
   Each president is assessed, and except for the somewhat unique argument for McKinley, the analyses are not surprising. Gould, for the most part, agrees with other historians' assessments. Not enough time has lapsed since Clinton, and the chapter he gets is weak; Gould opted to focus on the scandals and controversies. Most interesting of all, perhaps, is Gould's conclusion that the modern presidency is ill-equipped to deal with the problems of this century.
   
   Overall, a solid overview of the presidency.

5 comments about Washington's God: Religion, Liberty, and the Father of Our Country.

1. An outstanding book that shows clearly that the father of our country was a Christian and not the deist that revisionists would have us believe. For anyone interested in what made up the character of George Washington, this book is a must. Washington's own words and the words of those who knew him speak volumes.



2. The Novaks take on the tough question: Was George Washington a Christian or a Deist? With a thorough approach in an historical context, this work is a must read for anyone looking for this answer or who wants to explore an interesting side of our first President.



3. Was George Washington a deist or a Christian? It is an important question, as Washington was not only the first president but the most respected of all of America's founding fathers.
   
   In their book, "Washington's God," Michael and Jana Novak investigate Washington's public and private life to answer this question. The evidence is mixed:
   
   Toward the view that Washington was a deist: Washington rarely referred to Jesus Christ (although he did write a letter to the Delaware Indians and recommend the religion of Jesus Christ), but instead he preferred the term "Providence," or generic terms like "the Author of our Blessed Religion." Washington regularly refused to take communion at church. When asked point-blank if he believed in Jesus Christ, he would not answer the question. When he died, he did not ask for a minister, and simply said, "'Tis well."
   
   Toward the view that Washington was a Christian: Washington was a member of the Anglican church, which he attended regularly, including overseeing business of his local church. He agreed to be godfather to eight children, something the less religious Thomas Jefferson refused to do. He spoke of "Providence" in Christian terms, not deist terms. A deist believes God is like a watchmaker who makes the world and then is not involved; Washington instead spoke of divine Providence intervening and bringing together the events that led to his victory in the American Revolution. His reluctance to explicitly state his faith in Jesus Christ can be understood as typical for an Anglican who is more reserved about public expressions of faith. Nevertheless, there are reports of him privately praying during the war, and he insisted on having chaplains in the Continental Army. After his death, Martha Washington spoke of it as a Christian death.
   
   On balance, Novak concludes that while he was very private about his faith, George Washington was, indeed, a Christian. He notes that Washington believed in religious liberty and opposed a state church, but Washington supported an accomodationist view of church and state that allows for public expresssions of general faith in the public square, without an endorsement of any particular denomination.



4. Novak & daughter make repeated assumptions that are in no way indicated by the historical record, and at most, his and his fellow Christian Revisionist Historian's wishful thinking are the only basis for this tome. To conclude that a man that does not even USE the word Jesus, in one SINGLE instance in ANY of his known documents, or writings, is a Christian, is disingenuous, and has a political, rather than religious overtone. Save your money, would be my advice, and skip this as the pure propaganda that it most certainly is.



5. I chose this book because I had been reading some shorter biographies on George Washington and I became interested in the "truth" about his faith. This book hits on some interesting points but the writing style is very choppy (the author constantly goes back and forth in time) and the style of narrative just didn't draw this reader in. David McCullough's epic volume on John Adams - as long and detailed as it is - proves that an author can provide tremendous detail and still keep the reader wanting to turn the page to learn more. Still, for some strong evidence that George Washington was no passive deist, but actually had a compelling Christian faith, one can turn to Washington's God as a good source of information.

5 comments about Cleopatra - A Biography.

1. When it comes to ancient history, Michael Grant is the greatest! I've read several of his other books and he never fails to amuse and inform. His book on Cleopatra is informative as well as entertaining. Cleopatra was a Greek Macedonian ruler of Egypt with a deep love for culture and powerful men. Her liaisons with Caesar and Antony are very well described, as are her achievements as queen. Mr. Grant is truly the greatest!



2. Cleopatra is a fascinating figure... renowned as a patron of arts and learning, a gifted linguist, and a canny politicians, she is too often remembered as a sex kitten. Grant cuts thru the myths, pro- and anti propaganda to deliver what is probably the best biography on Cleopatra. Writen by one of the marquee lights of classical history, the book is written in academic style, although for the most part it is highly readable. To be honest, I found the first preliminary chapters to be somewhat slow going, but once the story begins it takes off like a grand soap opera. Not as splashy as some other works on the great queen, this is *the* place to go for a detailed, comprehensive look at Cleopatra.



3. It's the splashiest period of all ancient history... a near Jerry Springer opera of lust, betrayal, and tawdry affairs. And yet, Michael Grant makes it about as dull as he possibly can.

   He presents a very factual and well-researched account, though I take exception to several of his assertions and theories, including the one where he asserts that Octavian wanted Cleopatra to commit suicide because he was afraid the Romans would want to free her as they did her sister Arsinoe. Arsinoe was just one random Egyptian princess who defied Julius Caesar. Cleopatra was the occidental temptress who had ensnared and ruined two of Rome's best men. She was probably the most vilified and hated of all Rome's enemies in history, for with Cleopatra, it was intensely personal. The very idea that the bloodthirsty Romans would have a sudden sentimental streak towards her is pretty laughable.

   But on the whole, his theories are soundly researched and well justified, even when I disagree with them. The book has some lovely portraits and a more in depth examination of Cleopatra's forebearers than is usually presented in her biographies. Moreover, he has an excellent perspective on the supposed 'inevitability' of Cleopatra's loss, and how the world may well have been different had things gone another way.

   It's a reasonable and scholarly work that makes a fine addition to my collection. If you're looking for something to move you, you may prefer Margaret George's "The Memoirs of Cleopatra".




4. I'm not a classicist as some of the other reviewers on this site appear to be, but as a layperson I can say that this book was pretty interesting. There are some boring parts, as others noted, but what biography does not have some boring parts? Here's what I found especially interesting:

   Grant gives readers a good idea about how most of the chronicles he consulted were written from one perspective or another and thus tended to be sentimentally biased in one direction or another. Grant points out significantly that as "Westerners" we have clung most closely to the "Occidental" version of matters, rather than anything leaning toward the other side, the "Orient." He points out consistently how ancient writers who disliked Cleopatra changed facts around to disparage her, while the opposite was true of those who liked her.

   The point being, it seems, that you have to take your history with a grain of salt (just as we do the news from the various modern media). Some reviewers seem to feel that Grant himself is slightly biased, in Cleopatra's favor, but as long as we're aware of it, we can perhaps discern the bias and read other viewpoints to get a well-rounded sense of what actually occurred.

   The other interesting point was how many people, mostly men presumably, died during these ancient wars. And how little their deaths accounted for anything. In other words, life was a lot cheaper then than today. In Cleopatra's time, only the top dogs had the sense of individual rights that most of us have today. Is that progress?

   Grant's book, of course, is thoroughly documented for those wishing to do further investigation.

   Diximus.




5. There are naturally times in this book when it reads like a soap opera, but this has got to be the most detailed, believable, and scholarly work on Cleopatra I have ever read. Such is the background Mr. Grant gives on her father Ptolemy Auletes, the Roman situation with Egypt, and the Ptolemaic Dynasty for the first half of the book I almost forgot who it was about.
   
   As with most ancient people little is known of Cleopatra's early life, but the author reconstructs it as best he can, and gives us a view into her world and her mind from her early years to her final days. Included, of course, are detailed retellings of her affairs with Caesar and Marcus Antonius, her fiasco of a marriage to her brother, and the common opinion of her held by the Romans, Egyptians, and even the Jews of her period.
   
   This book really repaints the stereotypical image of this fascinating, but indeed deadly woman. She was, of course, not an Egyptian but a Macedonian by birth and a Greek by language and upbringing, and was known not so much for her beauty as for a combination of her magnetic personality, her keen intelligence, and her large, bent nose; this final feature is depicted in all the few contemporary portraits of her.
   
   Overall this is an excellent and scholarly reference to the life of Cleopatra and the Egypt and Rome of her day, and is not at all dry but an absorbing read. Very highly recommended!

1 comments about Eminent Lives: The Presidents Collection CD Set: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Ulysses S. Grant (Eminent Lives).

1. This was a joy to listen, as I learned a great deal about Washington, Jefferson, and most of all, Grant, in this very entertaining and at times engrossing audio book.

1 comments about Herndon's Lincoln (Knox College Lincoln Studies Center).

1. This is a reprint of the Lincoln biography published in the 1880s by his former law partner, Billy Herndon. Lincoln biographers have spent 95 years telling why Herndon was mistaken about this or that--until recently. Now they are beginning to say the earlier historians were wrong and Herndon was probably right. I had never read Herndon, but only had seen him quoted selectively. Billy comes through as a very honest man and a bit like Lincoln. One can see why the latter asked him to be his partner, and stuck it out in partnership with him for a good 20 years. The editors say Herndon was a better back-room lawyer than Lincoln, but Lincoln a much better courtroom lawyer, and the partnership complemented itself that way. Billy was better at research, and that suggests Billy did very good research on his Lincoln biography, too. Shortly after Lincoln was shot Herndon interviewed and corresponded with scores of people from Lincoln's family and his early life. It's easy to see why the law firm was successful, because Billy was a real bulldog. But his book was not well received in the 1880s when first published, largely because many thought it too crude in those days to point out Abe's mother's illegitmacy, etc. But Herndon was going to put down whatever the facts bore out. He adored Lincoln, and believed his greatness would be enhanced more by the truth than by lies... I now have a much higher regard for Herndon than formerly... On the other hand, the editors and publisher deserve low marks for the smallness of the type face, which goes down even smaller in the footnotes, making this important book more difficult to read than it should be. Don't be put off by the first Preface, either, which should be either buried at the end of the book or deleted.

1 comments about Roosevelt and the Holocaust: A Rooseveltian Examines the Policies and Remembers the Times.

1. I found this very readable book objective and very informative. Although Roosevelt probably could have substantially helped alleviate the suffering and genocide, of which he was undoubtedly aware, the author walks us through all the political quagmires at play in the 1930's and the very different realities of war-time '40's. Recommended for anyone interested in 20th century history, which should be all of us....