5 comments about The Kennedys: An American Drama.

1. One of the first things you will see are family-trees at the beginning of every part, where you can see all the members of the family, their children and their birth- and deathdates. Unfortunately for the Kennedy family many died prematurely, as is well recognized.
   
   Most Kennedy books will be focused on John F and his brother Robert F who were both shot. But in this book they still play main parts, but not the only ones. The book starts when the Kennedy's, and Fitzgeralds, came to America and how they quickly rose in first Boston and later American society, even though they had one big disadvantage; they were Irish.
   
   JFK's grandfather Honey Fitz became mayor of Boston by using the Irish vote. Joe Kennedy Sr. started out selling newspapers but was soon a movie producer, even having an alleged affair with movie star Gloria Swanson, something his sons would later copy with Marylin Monroe of course.
   
   Then came the biggest move in Joe Kennedy's life; he became Ambassador in England under Roosevelt, with whom he had a somewhat strained relationship. He would ever since be referred to as the Ambassador, even in his own family.
   
   Collier and Horowitz make it clear that the Ambassador is the most important member of the Kennedy family and that every child's actions are in some way related to him. The story is sometimes a little TV-movie sentimental, but whould would you do if you lose 4 children when you are still alive. The oldest son Joe dies in a WWII plane crash, his oldest daughter marries but loses her noble husband soon and dies herself in a plane crash a few months later.
   
   And of course there are the deaths of JFK and RFK.
   
   It's certainly not a hagiography telling how great the Kennedy's were. Old Joe Kennedy is sometimes shown as a towering figure who completely dominated his family's life until his stroke. JFK got his last rites twice and was often very sick with pain in his back and Addisson's desease. His medication is mentioned in the book and also are his numorous flings with women in the White House, his own house, even Airforce One. RFK seems to have been the most moral person and I believe the authors feel that way too. They explain his religion, his fight against organized crime and Jimmy Hoffa and also his meetings with minorities all over the world. He seemed to have had the Kennedy promise even more than his brother Jack or later Ted.
   
   The last part of the book is devoted to the next generation who cannot seem to deal with their heritage and often get into trouble, it seems as if everyone in the family is doing drugs, the last Kennedy death in the old edition, even loses his life because of it.
   
   It's a gripping story that sometimes reads like a novel. I think it gave a balanced story of the family with the good but also the bad, which made them even more human. It's a lot clearer now why the family was so loved and hated at the same time.
   
   A must-read for Kennedy-admirer and Kennedy-hater alike.



2. Well written and engaging, the book surveys three generations of Kennedys over four sections, beginning with how Joseph Patrick Kennedy shaped his family and gave his sons a calling (Architect of Their Lives) then moves on to how his sons Jack and Bobby developed their public careers following Joe, Jr.'s death in WWII (The Stand In) then moving to the peak Kennedy years of Jack's Presidency and Bobby's campaign (Brothers Within). The drama ends as both a sad farce describing Teddy's troubles and as a tragedy invading the lives of the lost generation of Kennedy children (The Lost Boys).
   
   The book centers, as did the family, around the elder Joseph Kennedy and his wife, the queenly Rose Fitzgerald. JPK's generosity and his sincerity surprise the reader given his raw ambition, his selfishness, his manipulation of people, his womanizing, and his incompetence as a diplomat. All this was equaled only by his talent as a business man and in the end surpassed by his devotion as a father. On the other hand, Rose comes off rather dry and unappealing, which is a little difficult to believe given that she had nine children.
   
   A disturbing revelation of the book was how high on drugs (usually prescribed) Jack was during his presidency. His awful health mandated pain killers and other drug therapies to allow him to function, but at the same time must have affected his judgment and his ability to work. Given the confrontational character of the Kennedys, one shudders to think of how badly the Cuban crisis could have turned out.
   
   I have two strong criticism of the book. First, not enough space is given to JPK's most important contribution to the United States: he created and established the Securities and Exchange Commission, which gave the USA for decades a virtual monopoly on fair and transparent financial markets. (President Roosevelt apparently responded to critics of this appointment that "it takes a crook to catch a crook".)
   
   Second, in the interest of protecting privacy, the material on the last Kennedy generation should have been left out. The book was published in 1984 when the lost Kennedys were still in their teens and twenties. The authors needlessly (though with sympathy) sensationalized sad stories, at too early a time in those lives to pass any sort of critical judgment.
   
   The most interesting discovery for me was Lem Billings. He basically followed all three generations: best friend to Jack Kennedy, reassuring JPK that his son had someone supporting him outside the family, and surrogate father to some of the young Kennedys after Bobby's assassination until his death in the early 80s. A short book on Billings would be welcome.



3. I read this book in 1984 and found it quite relevant and enlightening at the time. I am glad that the third generation has gotten itself together and are doing good things.
   
   I have also notice that any books written after Jackie's death have a wealth of information! President Kennedy is a real person (not some far off statesman). Jackie's plus and minuses are explored and she becomes human too! The way she raised Caroline and John was amazing and they seemed to have avoided any of the pitfalls of their other cousins. Except the most devastating one of course and that was will always be a great tragedy of a young life unfinished.
   
   Another excellent book written at the same time is Doris Goodwin's: The Fitzgeralds and the Kennedys: An American Saga. John B. Davis, Jackie's first cousin has written serveral books on Jackie, Kennedy's and the Mafia. You will not be disappointed.



4. Heard the taped version of THE KENNEDYS: AN AMERICAN
   DREAM by Peter Collier and David Horowitz.
   
   This was a controversial NEW YORK TIMES bestseller when
   it was published in 1984, and I can see why . . . it tells the
   story of a dysfunctional family over three generations, centering
   around the elder Joseph Kenney and his wife Rose Fitzgerald . . . it then
   moves on to tell how his sons Jack and Bobby moved into the
   limelight via their careers in elected politics . . . and the book
   concludes with an account of Teddy's troubles, as well as those
   of the younger Kennedy children.
   
   Along the way there was adultery, drug usage (particularly by
   Jack during his presidency), alcoholism, and a variety of characters
   who mostly come across as not very lovable . . . perhaps only Lem
   Billings, JFK's best friend and subsequent family advisor, comes
   across in any sort of favorable light.
   
   My main criticism of THE KENNEDYS had to do with the last
   part . . . many of the younger Kennedys were portrayed in a negative
   fashion and though they may have had their difficulties while in
   school, several settled down and went on to careers in public
   service . . . consequently, I could have done without some
   of the dirt that seems to have been found.
   
   Yet that is probably what gives this book its appeal, so I'd
   recommend it if you want both the good and the bad about the
   Kennedy family . . . in addition, the narration by Joseph
   Campanella was outstanding and added to my enjoyment
   of listening to this tale about a dynasty that had to face
   so much tragedy over the years.



5. I was pretty disappointed. I have read a lot on individual Kennedys, and was looking for something to tie them all together. This book is very surface level, and practically ignores the women in the family. I know it is more interesting to cover the successful politicians (all male at the time of first publishing in 1984) and the drug abusers (apparently also all male, but still not sure), but a word or two about some of the other Kennedys would have been nice. For example, Eunice Kennedy Shriver, who founded the special olympics, gets only passing mention. All in all an interesting read, but mostly because the family (faults and successes) is so compelling, not because of the writing.

5 comments about Andrew Jackson: Symbol for an Age (Galaxy Books).

1. As one generation describes slices of history to another, the events and personalities are altered in the process. Ward shows how Jackson's persona emerged in the transfer of historical knowledge from one generation to the next.
   In earning a national reputation as a war hero in the Battle of New Orleans, Jackson credited God with the victory and saw himself as a chosen instrument in His hands.
   A city-wide religious ceremony was held in the aftermath of that victory. All New Orleans acknowledged humble thanksgiving to God for the successful defense of the city.
   Riding the crest of this military popularity Jackson was elected president and the masses who turned out for his inaugural events were unlike any other before him. His administration was a shift from the elite to a populous approach to government. Ward includes helpful anecdotes to keep the readers abreast of some of the details of the time and places covered.



2. My first impression of this book was that it was nothing more than rampant ramblings of senseless quibble. Once the reader understands that this is a psychoanalytical, socio-political, cultural and philosophical study of Andrew Jackson the man, versus the times he endured, it is truly an insightful work.
   Touted as a man of iron-will, determination and unbound democratic principles, Jackson was a man for the ages which he represented.
   Praised for his efforts in the Florida Indian battles and the Battle of New Orleans against the British (and denounced by some for his disregard for orders), he nonetheless came out on top of the situation for the people and his country.
   He exhibited qualities of the self-made man and this is what swayed his popularity. Jackson started from humble beginnings, and with his resolve and perceptiveness, became not only President of the United States for two terms, but was also looked up to as a hero with no self-limitations.



3. Reading this I am reminded of people you meet that talk just to hear themselves speak this book reminded me of those people. From the start you are engulfed in babble about Andrew Jackson. Even though this is considered a scholarly book, I feel that the writer just typed and typed and used words and sentences that were difficult to understand just to make himself sound important and intelligent. After reading this book I did not have a grasp on who Andrew Jackson was, but I did however know that I did not like the author.



4. This quite readable book (if you read scholarly books) is possibly more relevant today than when it was written (in 1953). The author demonstrates how the concepts of Nature, God, and Will combined in the American imagination to provide the basis for beliefs about ourselves as a nation and our place in the world. The author doesn't explicitly draw a line from then-to-now (or even then-to-1953), but you will be able to draw that line yourself if you are an observer of American culture. If you are interested in current politics or the state of the nation today, read this book; you will understand more about how we got to where we are. It is not a biography of Andrew Jackson, but rather a carefully drawn picture of his times, using him, as the titles says, as a "symbol" for his era.



5. American democratic politics, as can be easily seen in this year's presidential nominating processes, has always been encumbered with symbols. That fact is hardly new or news. What is news is that today's seemingly modern notion of proper electoral technique has a fairly ancient pedigree. Although Parson Weems did more than his share to establish the iconic figure of George Washington, arguably the subject of this work, Andrew Jackson, really was the first president to get the full public relations `spin' treatment that we take as a matter of course in today's politics.
   
   The present volume builds the case for Jackson symbolic virtues at a time when America, after a series of nasty encounters with the British, notably the War of 1812, developed an inward look westward and away from the `degeneracy' of the seaboard. If Jackson did not fit the bill to a tee then his agents, paid or otherwise, filled in the blanks. First place in those efforts goes to highlighting his military prowess and soldierly concerns in defeating (to what real purpose no one knows since the war was over by this time) against the British at the tail end of the War of 1812 at the Battle of New Orleans.
   
   From there it was fairly simple to make him a man of the' people'. In this case the people being empathically not the residents of the eastern seaboard but the `fresh' yeomanry of the Westward trek. You know- the ones who exhibited all the plebian virtues as solid tillers of the soil, holders of folk wisdom against the effete nabobs of the cities and the true patriots of rising American agricultural capitalism. The author builds his case by using a series of fairly common references beginning his work with an analysis of a Jackson poetic tribute `The Hunters of Kentucky' and dissects that bit of work to see how it fit into the scheme of making Jackson the first "people's" president. All the other tributes and, at the end eulogies, then fall into place.
   
   If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery then his Whig opponents do that by learning from his handlers by the time of the `Tippecanoe' Harrison campaign of 1840. And from there we are off to the races. Note this- as if to reinforce the argument presented by the book- can anyone today deny that that myth built so long ago still, with the exception of a dent caused by his savagery against the Native Americans, stands as the way he is thought of in the American pantheon? The Democrats continue their traditional Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinners without blushing.

1 comments about Tiberius (Blackwell Ancient Lives).

1. When I first discovered Robin Seager, it was through his book, "Pompey the Great". This was a book I just couldn't read finding it utterly long-winded and excruciatingly detailed (read: boring!). I did eventually read it, when I was ready, and discovered Seager to be an impressive historian whose fondness for detail I greatly enjoyed. Thus, I picked up Tiberius hoping for more of the same. And I wasn't disappointed. Tiberius was the second Principate of Rome having been adopted by Augustus to take over after his death. He was certainly not the first choice but in the end, Tiberius outlived all the other potential heirs Augustus had chosen. Tiberius was an honoured and respected general who had Republican sensibilities. As Principate, he clashed numerous times with the Senate over its inabilities to make decisions for itself and deferring many issues back to him (after he initially passed onto them). Seager takes us through Tiberius' life from his childhood roots (and the eventual familial-bond that he and Augustus would share) to his selection as Principate. He looks at the different occurrences in Tiberius' early life that set him down his eventual path (but not without some resistance first) and his role as Principate (from determining attacks to his relationship with the people). Seager provides a very comprehensive view of the second Principate's reign and his accomplishments and failures. Many have criticized Tiberius and claimed him a tyrant due to his misuse of maiestas (a sort of treason law), allowing Piso (Tiberius' friend) to bring down Germanicus (the much loved successor to-be of Tiberius if he had survived), his war and subsequent unfair treatment of Agrippina (mother of Gauis, wife of Germanicus) and his allowing of Sejanus to manipulate him for his own ambitions (which were obviously detrimental to Rome and many persons within). Although not excusing his behaviour, especially the later half as his mental reason began to crumble; Seager portrays a man who never had the ambitions to be Principate. Unlike many others, Tiberius wanted to end his days in peace and be left alone. What he got instead was the greatest responsibility, which with his virtues, he couldn't easily let go of. Although a very capable leader, Tiberius' greatest weaknesses were his poor attitude to the Principate position and his arrogance and stubbornness towards others. This is what caused the conflicts with the Senate and allowed people such as Sejanus to rise in power and cause so many problems. Tiberius showed himself initially as a fair and reasonable leader but as time went on, he detached himself from his position and its responsibilities and allowed others to take advantage of it. Seager shows that Tiberius was not a tyrant but rather a man who became too disillusioned and too stubborn to let go.

5 comments about The Secret Life of Bill Clinton: The Unreported Stories.

1. I just finished reading this book - on the heals of finishing Bernard Goldberg's book, Bias. It made me sick to my stomach. Not being one to swallow what someone tries to feed me without thinking for myself, if even some of the allegations made in this book are true, it's horrifying.

   I'm wondering why no one in the media wants to uncover the truth about Vince Foster's death. I learned recently that his widow received a $286,000 wire transfer 4 days after his death and no one wants to account for the money trail.

   What blows my mind is if Bill had a "nose like a vacuum" as the author alleges Roger Clinton stated on a surveillance tape, why isn't that front page news? Are we so gullible as a society that we tolerate such behavior from our leaders so long as it doesn't interfere with our own personal quality of life?

   I admit I am no fan of the Clintons and I didn't vote for Al Gore. However, I'm having trouble sleeping at night in fear for the country my son will inherit if these allegations are true. I always knew the rich and powerful got different justice from the rest of us - I guess I always thought the press would protect us from ourselves. God help us all.

   This book is powerful in its ability to "probe and disturb".




2. To the people who read this book, you really should do some research on the author, who was sure that he was going to be killed by Clinton's "Death Squads" while writing this. It's a perfect book to feed the conservative paranoia that the Clinton years cultivated. The guy couldn't even have a successful affair without getting caught, how he could have managed all that he is accused of in this book is borderline absurd. And the section regarding the advanced knowledge of the Oklahoma bombing is just plain ridiculous, especially when you compare it to the recent allegation of the Bush administration's advance knowledge of 9/11 activities. It's easy to dislike Clinton when you're a conservative, I understand, and this book certainly gives you fuel for the fire. But no one should take anything in this book as entirely factual or of any journalistic value. The elaborate footnotes and "documentation" are an almost comedic exersize in logical thinking. But hey, I'm not going to knock a book that so many people like. The only thing I object to is its classification as a "non-fiction" book.



3. I purchased this book after hearing review after review of it from my family members. Needless to say, they were right - this book is an absolute bombshell of information that pinpoints most, if not all of the ethical and legal faux pas raised by the Clinton Administration and the organizations under that regime. Some of the highlights include how the FBI blundered Waco, how the Murrah building was most definately more than a one-person job (but was apparently ordered not to investigate it as such), how Clinton was dealing in cocaine trafficking and how the Clintons managed to cover all of this up with the help of the liberal media.

   ... Ambrose Evans-Pritchard documents everything he asserts based on facts of witness testimony, comparing FBI affadavits, and other documents related to these cases. If there is any flaw with the book is that Pritchard couldn't 100% tie all of the incidents to Clinton, though 95% of the crimes mentioned in the book can be easily seen how they tie to Clinton or to someone high up in the Clinton administration.

   I reiterate - this book is a must-read to anyone who is sick and tired of hearing how great the Clinton Administration is, and should be read by those people who continue to profess how wonderful Clinton was.




4. I just read this book for the second time after having read it a few years ago. It's amazing how time dulls the memory. I had forgotten about all of the scandals and crimes associated with the Clintons and it is chilling that after all of this time the Clintons still have not been held accountable and at this time Hillary is even in the running to become our next president.
   
   Ambrose Evans-Pritchard has written a well-documented and well-researched book from years of investigation and interviews. He has meticulously laid out the evidence for the Clintons association with the Oklahoma bombing, Vince Foster's death, the sad murder of Kevin Ives, the "Dixie Mafia" and even Paula Jones.
   
   I can understand why those who are enamored of Bill Clinton will not like this book but in typical left-wing form those who have given this book only one star and complain that it is filled with lies offer no facts to refute those supposed lies.



5. This is a chronicle of how the Clintons and their twelve years in the governor's mansion of Arkansas and two terms in the office of the Presidency have left our democratic institutions in shambles. From a perch at the pinnacle of the Dixie Mafia, Hot Springs Arkansas, they have taken the nation on a descent down into "anti-democratic" hell, from which the Republic may never recover. This book is a virtual catalogue of how they did it: an unimaginable tale of corruption and abuses of power that, in comparison, will make the Monica Lewinsky scandal seem like a Sunday school picnic.
   
   Ambrose Evans-Pritchard a reporter for London's Sunday Telegraph uses his considerable investigative skills and his diplomatic immunity from the Clinton terror tactics to weave a series of tales that will literally make the reader's hair stand on end. Everything here has the ring of truth. But even if it did not, and a tenth of it is correct, then we are already living deep inside a "well-regulated" police state.
   
   One word of caution to the reader: A great deal of this is circumstantial and hearsay evidence, however, as will become obvious to any astute reader: in a "soft police state," after witnesses have been intimidated, cajoled and murdered; documents have been tampered with, lost or shredded; drug money has been laundered and reinvested; subpoenas have been ignored or squashed; secrecy and plausible deniability have been invoked to shield everything from the public; we have a sycophantic incurious press, and public officials have been muted, silenced, bribed or coached into lying -- all up and down the line -- there isn't much else left but hearsay and circumstantial evidence. Plus, there is so much of this kind of evidence that its preponderance and very cross-confirmation alone takes on a life of its own, that is to say, it lends to these stories a kind of credibility and credence of its own.
   
   In each of the scandals included -- from the Okalahoma City bombing cover up, to the reasons for Vince Foster's and Jerry Parks murders, to Dan Lasater, Don Tyson, and the Stephen's brothers cocaine empire -- run by the Clintons out of the Arkansas Development Finance Administration (ADFA) -- to complicity in a contract to murder Colonel Terry Reed -- this is in every respect a blue print for how to turn our democracy into the world's largest "soft police state."
   
   In short, this book is nothing if not the anatomy of a "soft police state" in the making, with the State of Arkansas taking the lead in the descent into irretrievable corruption. How does it happen? The subtext of this book gives us a step-by-step manual for how its done: When unchecked power, secrecy, a complacent public, weak kneed and corrupt political authorities and ruling elites, a press that will not face the reality before it, and large illicit sums of drug money, collide; and then collude: morality and civility are the first to go out the window. And then our democracy is in grave if not mortal danger.
   
   Like a snake lying coiled waiting ready to spring on its prey from the grass, unwary citizens were enticed, lured, seduced or co-opted inside the circle of the Clinton corruption. Once inside, the noose is tightened and the trap door slammed shut. There are no exits except to "go on the lam" as Colonel Terry Reed, L. D. Brown, Patty-Ann Smith and Dennis Patrick did; or to play ball and pretend to love it, as Patsy Thomasson and Bob Nash, and so many others did; or be committed to jail or suicide as was done to Sarah McClendon; or be banished to purgatory as Paula Jones and Monica Lewinski were, or indeed give up your life as Vince Foster, Barry Seal and Jerry Parks did.
   
   The author's thoughts are best summarized on page 316 when he is discussing the issue of Mena, Arkansas:
   
   "What makes [the Iran Contra affair] so fascinating today is evidence that the CIA's base of operation was actively involved. The idea that an outwardly liberal and progressive Democrat like Bill Clinton was secretly assisting Oliver North's crusade against the Revolucion Sandinista is so shocking that the American press has dismissed it out of hand. But it is precisely because Mena turns the world upside down that it matters so much. If true, it validates the inchoate suspicion felt by many Americans that things are not what they seem. It suggests that the political rhetoric of the two parties in Washington is mere window dressing, while the real decisions are made in secret collusion without democratic accountability. To examine Mena is to examine the institutional condition of the United States. As for the president, it exposes him as a remarkable counterfeit, willing to betray his liberal principles for self-advancement."
   
   This is truly scary stuff. Five stars

3 comments about The Sacred Fire of Liberty: James Madison and the Founding of the Federal Republic.

1. Banning's book is a repetative, prolonged and far too lengthy an essay. He imaginatively and masterfully reinteprets Madison's ideas and actions as a member of several deliberative bodies that preceeded and followed the writing and ratification of the Constitution, finding him to be consistent throughout in his views on a central government and the powers of the states. The reading can be somewhat tedious for its redundancies, but worth the effort. Bannings scholarship is impecable, yet the book ought to be only an article in a scholarly journal.



2. Lance Bannings book is excellent, and long ovedue. History has left us a view of Madison that suggested he was Jefferson's lieutenant, an apostate to his nationilistic views in the 1790's, one view even diminished him to a 'trimmer' of ideas. The average person knows little of the Father of the Constituion, and as Jack Rakove stated at Princeton this February passed, we are learning what Madison always knew. Most views of Madison are not the result of individual study and research, many opinions of Madison arise from previous treatments. Banning began with the exchanges of Madison and found the consistency Madison always claimed. The actual history of Madison reveals an enormously capacious, hard working force behind the Constituion, Bill of Rights,The Federalist Papers, 41 years of public service, and the workings and definition of goverment. Viewed by friend and political foes as, brilliant and ' one adept at committee work and reasoned argument, one who could be depended on to speak and write with precision and force what others could express but vauely and in part.' Banning has surpassed those before him in Madisonian scholarship, by ardously discovering The Real Madison. The attention to detail is excellent, and the scholarship is not self defending just revealing. As Madison's true nature unfolds the consistency is revealed, from lieutenant to an independent thinker, and finally to the proper position of one the key thinkers behind American government. Being one dependent on scholars for my view of history, and granting then occaisonally the keepers of arcanum a merit they do not deserve, it is refreshing to have Lance Bannings contribution not only to Madisonian scholarship, but also to American History. The ongoing efforts by Dave Mattern and the Papers of James Madison have brought enormous information to light in the last few years, and it appears the work of Banning may be the beginning of Madison taking his deserved place in our history and common parlance, a parlance altered by the independent and ardous study this book represents.



3. Lance Banning passed away on Jan. 31 of this year. When I learned this I decided to change the focus of my review a little.
   First, what do I mean by the hermeneutics of generosity? By hermeneutics I mean a scheme or method of interpretation. An intellectual biographer who uses a hermeneutics of generosity starts off with certain assumptions. Everything people do they do for reasons. From the point of view of the biographical subject they are always good reasons.
   If you believe your subject to be a person of exacting moral standards and exceptional intelligence, then you assume that everything they have done can be back up by compelling arguments that have been long considered.
   This style of hermeneutics is obvious in two ways in Banning's work. Obviously, in the way he approaches Madison. But the first thing I want to talk about is the way Banning reacts to other scholars. His notes are extraordinary. Banning read everyone who had written on Madison and located his interpretations in relation to that of others. He not only carefully explains the differences between his interpretations and those of others (e.g., Martin Diamond, Gordon Woods, Paul Rahe and Jennifer Nedelsky among others) but he also points out the strengths of their alternatives. This was a man who knew how to listen to his sources and not just to one up them.
   But it is really in regard to James Madison that Banning's approach shines through in all its humanity. Banning believes that there is a standard version of Madion's intellectual biography that is largely wrong. That standard version is based on the biographies of Irving Brant and Ralph Ketcham and the intellectual histories of Gordon Woods and Martin Diamond. In the standard version, James Madison (JM) started off as a strong nationalist in the early 1780s. He was part of the movement at that time to modify the Articles or to change them completely. JM's method of constitutional interpretation at that time is usually considered to have been expansive or willing to loosely construe the document so as to justify non-explicit central government powers (e.g., Morris' national bank).
   JM's nationalistic period continued all the way through his work at the Constitutional Convention, the writing of The Federalist and his first year in the new Congress. However, when Hamilton's economic programs began to unfold during the second and third terms of Congress, JM began to backpedal on his nationalism and his expansive constructionism. By the mid-1790s, JM is usually seen as a strict constructionist and a states rights theorist who would remain so all his life. Thus the standard version gives us two Madisons, who can only be connected by various versions of the Madison as practical or conniving politician who changed his stripes due to the political winds of the moment.
   Banning will have none of this. He believes the standard version misrepresents all aspects of JM's career. Banning believes that if we take JM's writings throughout his life seriously, then he clearly see a very consistent thinker whose whole career is centered around the dynamic problem of how to ground government on the people without being exposed to the inconveniences or "excesses" of democratic rule. I will limit my discussion of Banning's revisionism (his term) to his interpretation of two aspects of JM's career that are essential to his argument.
   The first is JM's career in the Continental Congress of the early 1780s. The democratic excesses were showing up in the Confederation period in the behavior of the states.
   Banning shows that in the early 1780s that JM was indeed a nationalist but a qualified one. JM read the national scene from the point of view of Virginia and from his understanding of revolutionary politics. Any national measure that wasn't good for Virginia was unlikely to be favored by JM. As for the Conferderation, the problem was the weakness of the federal Union. If the structural flaws of the Articles could be amended, the misbehavior of the states could be controlled. Thus, at this point in his career, Madison was not part of the movement that wanted to jettison the Articles. He merely wanted to amend them to make implicit powers explicit. That point is very important. Banning argues forcefully from JM's writings that even at this point, JM was a strict constructionist. So the standard version is wrong in two ways about the early Madison.
   The other central moment in Banning's revision is the aftermath of the Constitutional Convention, especially, the writing of The Federalist. This is usually seen as one of the strongest arguments for the standard view. It is well known that Madison expressed dismay after the Convention about the prospects for the longevity of the new government should it be ratified. He was upset that his suggestion for a national veto of the laws of the individual states had not been written into the finished document. He also was dismayed that the representation in the Senate was equal for each state. He thought this repeated a fundamental flaw in the Articles.
   And yet, within two months, JM was well into writing The Federalist where he explicitly agreed with both of these decisions by the Convention. Most readers, including myself, find this to be a little disingenuous on Madison's part. But for Banning, this was indicative of JM having changed his mind. According to Banning, during the course of reflecting on the work of the Convention and of writing The Federalist, JM must have realized that his opponents in the Convention had compelling reasons for doing what they did and he therefore changed his mind. Banning states that anyone who has written out a long argument is familiar with changing their mind during the course of the writing. Fair enough.
   But this brings me to the two main issues that I had with Banning's whole thesis.
   As proof that JM accepted the counterarguments against his idea of a national government veto, Banning claims that JM never tried to push that idea again after his writing of The Federalist. In this, I think he can be shown to be, at least, partially wrong. When JM first introduced his Bill of Rights proposal to the first Congress, his fifth Amendment stated "No state shall violate the equal rights of conscious, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases." It seems to me to be arguable that JM was trying to get through as much of a national veto as he thought possible. The theoretician was trimming his sails to the political winds. This is not a bad thing. Most any reasonable reformer will take what they can get.
   But it speaks to one of the central tensions in JM's thought and Banning's revisionism. JM obviously believed that any government, to be legitimate, had to be founded on the people. But he did not trust the people to behave, to not become a "factious" majority willing to strip the rights
   of some minority. As far as I can read, JM or Banning's version thereof never gives us a definition of what sets off a "factious" majority from a majority pursuing the true interests of the country. This is where Madison the politician enters. I often feel that JM, like Jefferson, was willing to take advantage of political changes and that they were more than willing to alter or bend their philosophies to do so. When they were out of power, it was easy to be consistent theorists. Once in power, it turned out that there were more things to deal with than dreamed of in their philosophies. Unlike Prof. Banning, I am okay with that. I do not feel that Banning succeeds in explaining away this tendency of JM's. I suggest that when you read this book that you keep a copy of the Library of America's edition of Madison's Writings near to hand. It contains most of the papers that JM wrote which Banning uses. Read each one before you read the corresponding section of Banning and see if you always agree with what Banning makes of that particular writing. I did not.
   Have I learned from the reading of this book? Yes, yes, O my yes. This is an extraordinarily learned book written with a generous and respectful scholastic spirit. Banning has changed much of how I read Madison if not as much as he might have wished. But the real pleasures of this book have to do as much with spending time with Lance Banning's intellect and spirit as those of JM.
   In fact, perhaps the highest compliment I can pay the author is that I think that James Madison would have found him a kindred spirit.
   One final note: the Liberty Fund is publishing a volume this summer edited by David Womersley entitled Liberty and American Experience in the Eighteenth Century. It will contain what is probably Banning's last publication- an article entitle, "Federalism, Constitutionalism, and Republican Liberty: The First Constructions of the Constitution". I plan to be among the first to read it. Do I have my geek on or what?

5 comments about Sworn on the Altar of God: A Religious Biography of Thomas Jefferson (Library of Religious Biography Series).

1. Excellent book As a school board member this book is important to show the importance of saving public education to perserve the American EXperiment. Jefferson was always in favor of a public educational system as a means to perserve the wall of separation between church and state. I would recommend this book for anyone who is oppossed to vouchers and charters schools



2. Thomas Jefferson's thinking hovers over many of today's debates regarding separation of church and state, school prayer, the place of public education, and the place of faith in our own lives.

   This is an excellent exploration of the complexities of Jefferson's beliefs and the even more complex world of how his writings and thoughts continue to impact America today.




3. This book is an excellent compliement to Charles Sanford's "The Religious Life of Thomas Jefferson." Whereas Sanford does a scholarly review of the content of Jefferson's religious ideas, Gaustad in this book gives the narrative and context for how Jefferson applied his ideas concerning religion and religious freedom. Most interesting to me in the Gaustad book were the accounts of the political fights Jefferson and Madison waged for religious freedom during the early years of the Republic. Gaustad filled in the historical gaps and gave me context for understanding how momentous the struggle truly was. Also brought to life by Gaustad are the correspondences between the aged ex-presidents Jefferson and Adams about God and religion. I highly recommend this book to those interested in the history of ideas and freedom of thought.



4. Sworn on the Altar of God is an extremely informative look at Thomas Jefferson's faith. As one of the Founding Fathers, politicians and people of faith have so often tried to understand Jefferson's faith. In truth, he was a deist and a rationalist. Understanding the implications of this faith have great ramifications in our current times, especially in relation to a government which seems so intent on glorifying evangelical fundamentalism at the expense of reason. I feel that Jefferson would have been appalled!



5. Gaustad, Edwin S. Sworn on the Altar of God: A Religious Biography of Thomas Jefferson. Grand Rapids, Michigan / Cambridge, United Kingdom: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996. 246 pages. Notes on the Sources, index.
   
   Sworn on the Altar of God, is a religious biography (as the subtitle implies) by Edwin S. Gaustad, the critically acclaimed professor of history at the University of California, Riverside. He has written other historical books (also with good reviews I may add) such Documentary History of Religion of America, and in this book he scores again, only if it were a biography of Thomas Jefferson rather than a religious biography.
   
   Gaustad uses many of Jefferson writings and includes it in this biography with citations and context of when it is being said. He does this in a way that makes this book appealing. Right from the start though I noticed a flaw, he states his opinion as fact which is also known as the fallacy of misplaced concreteness. He states "Thomas Jefferson was the most self consciously theological of all America's presidents" [Gaustad, preface XIII]. This is contested by many people today who argue that Abraham Lincoln (a well known deist who spoke on God often) and / or George W. Bush (though I don't agree nor do I wish to resort to argumentum ad populum fallacy) is / are the most self consciously theological of all presidents. While this book isn't supposed to be arguing for ones view, I can forgive this. I liked how in the beginning he pointed out the misconception that everyone has today about Separation of Church and State, in the fact that it is not in our constitution but rather it was just a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists [preface IX]. So he expected to catch the viewer's attention by pointing out that misconception (though I already knew that fact) and worked. The books title is based on the quote from Thomas Jefferson "I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny of the mind of man" [189]. He goes on to explain Jefferson's life from child hood to death and how he was very Anglican in his birth but went astray from his roots when he got older during The Enlightenment. He explains that he did this because he read many of Joseph Priestley's and Thomas Paine's works and wrote back to them (in secrecy) with open theological discussions. He does a good job doing this due to his extensive work he put into going out and getting all of Jefferson's writings.
   
   What my main quarrel is with this book, is the fact that only a portion of this book actually is actually a religious biography of Thomas Jefferson. The only chapters I found interesting and valuable (that actually pertained to the title) were chapters: 1, 2, 5, and 8. The other 4 chapters were a complete bore and filled with clutter that has nothing to do with religion and never built up to anything associated with religion. Let me give you a fine example, in chapter 6 "The Educator", all Gaustad talks about is James Madison and Thomas Jefferson building the University of Virginia and what his rules were, and to be more specific, one page is even devoted to his architecture from Monticello and how he applied it to the University of Virginia [174]. I noticed what he tried to do in this chapter, he opened up with a quote from Thomas Priestly about creation and man, then he stuck a bunch of clutter about the establishment of University of Virginia then at the end he puts "What sounded like freedom to Jefferson could sound like Unitarianism to others" [180] even though he hardly touched on that aspect in the chapter itself.
   
   What I like about the 4 chapters that actually related to the title of the book was that it delves deep into his feelings and his theological thinking. Chapter 2 "Student of the Enlightenment", explains his reasoning behind accepting reasoning over scripture, for instance "But those facts in the Bible which contradict laws of nature which must be examined with more care" [33]. Chapter 5 "The Religious Reformer", completely goes through Thomas Jefferson's work The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth with a fine tooth comb explaining what verses he cut out and what he kept. His book is a rehash of the 4 gospels that cuts out all miracles and supernatural and leaves the morals for him to study on his own. This work has now been put together and published as The Jefferson Bible. Chapter 8 "A Religion for the People" focuses on Jefferson's feelings against other religions and explains how he ended up intensely disliking the Anglicans because of their doctrine and charging him as a heathen around election time. It also explains how he liked the Quakers because they possessed no doctrine (thus accepting reason over scripture) but were mainly peaceful.
   Overall, this work by Gaustad does a good job portraying Jefferson's deism and his thoughts on prayer, but the few chapters that actually were related to the title could have been made into a pamphlet or an online article rather than a $14.00 book. It is very mainstream friendly, but I would recommend anyone JUST interested in Jefferson's religion to read the book The Religious Life of Thomas Jefferson by Charles B. Sanford instead.

5 comments about The Raising of a President: The Mothers and Fathers of Our Nation's Leaders.

1. I like Mr. Wead's books because they offer accurate history from a different perspective. While they don't belabor psychological phenomenon when they encounter it, neither do they ignore it when it slaps you in the face. There is so much new in these books, taken from the diaries of these children or parents of the presidents. And there is so much that one can learn about parenting. I can't wait for the book on siblings.



2. I was waiting for this one to come out in paperback but I guess the sales keep humming along so I finally went out and bought one. Wow! it was worth it. This is a classic that will have a long shelf life in our family. I will never see the presidents the same again. They are like the rest of us - little children inside grown up bodies. The treatment on FDR and his mother is riveting. Much new here from the diaries and interviews. I knew that mothers were prominet in the lives of their sons but the massive evidence - the reoccuring events that these men have in common is remarkable. It makes sense that the "absent father" is no coincidence either.



3. As an extremely amatuer historian with ADD and with a fascination for Abraham Lincoln, I really liked this. The research that I have done on my own, albeit not extensive, on Lincoln seems to jive with the author's conclusion. I have no reason to doubt the truthfulness of his writings on the other presidents.
   
   Books rarely hold my interest, and this one did.



4. This is an excellent book with a slant on history no one has ever delved into in any depth. It was fascinating to read about the one group of people who had the most vested interest in raising our future leaders.



5. Doug Wead first hit the betseller lists with his book on the children of the Presidents of the United States. In this sequel
   he explores the lives of the parents of America's Chief Executives. It is a fascinating journey into the past in an area of presidential history that is little explored,
   Wead gives brief biographies of all the presidential parents from George Washington through George W. Bush. Extended chapters focus on six presidential families:
   1. George Washington-His father died when he was young; he did not get along with overdominating mother Mary Ball Washington.
   2. The Adams family featuring a well drawn portrait of John and Abigail Adams; their influential parents and their brilliant son John Quincy who served as the 6th President of the US.
   3. The little known story of Abraham Lincoln's hardscrabble poverty ridden youth on the Kentucky and Indiana frontier. His
   father Thomas was an ignorant brute who often beat Abe; His mother Nancy Hanks and his stepmother Sarah Bush Johnston gave
   Lincoln the gift of learning, love and set our greatest chief executive on the road to glory. Lincoln had a sad, difficult and
   tragic life.
   4. The family life of Franklin Delano Roosevelt the son of the wealthy James Roosevelt and his wife the indomitable Sarah
   Roosevelt. James died while FDR was a boy; Sarah was one of the
   strongest mothers in our history. She was the third party in FDR's marriage to Eleanor. Sarah made FDR a mother's boy but was also the greatest influence in his development.
   5. The family of John F. Kennedy was dominated by Joe Kennedy to made millons; was often allied to the mob and was a womanizer of Olympian proportions. His mother Rose was often away on shopping trips to Europe and did not give Kennedy the love he craved.
   6. The quiet dynasty of the Bush family is explored in succinct
   but savvy chapters. We met US Senator Prescott Bush; his son
   George Herbert Walker Bush our 41st President and our current
   occupant of the Oval Office: George W. Bush. The Bush family is notable for the strong women it has produced. Dorothy Bush the
   tough, tennis champion spouse of Prescott; the strong Barbara
   Bush who modeled herself after Dorothy and Laura Bush.
   Wead has done a good job of sorting myth from the facts. This
   book can be used as an excellent reference book as well as a
   great read.
   I recommend this book with high marks!

5 comments about Martin Van Buren : The Romantic Age of American Politics (Signature Series).

1. This is a very readable and interesting book that deals with the long and highly political life of Martin Van Buren. He comes off very well as a hard-working, fair and moral politician who practically establishes the democratic party as a well-oiled machine for both New York state and the United States. I have now read multiple books about the first eight presidents and he can hold his own with almost all of them so far. Highly recommended.



2. It is hard to tell how a man will do as President based on his experience. Some figures with virtually no political experience became good Presidents, such as Washington and Lincoln; others were failures such as Grant or Hoover. On the other hand, political experience is no guarantee of success: John Quincy Adams and James Buchanan had decent resumes going into office and had miserable presidencies. Martin Van Buren, one of the most politically talented of all Presidents, was not an utter failure, but he didn't shine in office either.

   In Niven's biography, we follow Van Buren from his impoverished roots through his rise in New York state government. Although not perfect, Van Buren had enough political astuteness and the right sort of temperment to help create and lead a party machine and elevate New York's prominence on a national level. Becoming a trusted advisor to Andrew Jackson and a member of his cabinet eventually led to his Vice Presidency and then the Presidency. With a major financial crash occurring right as he got into office, Van Buren was struggling right off the bat, and wound up serving only a single term; nonetheless, in an era of one-term presidents (from 1837 to 1861, no president was re-elected), Van Buren was hardly thrown into ignonimy after his defeat; instead, he remained a powerful member of the Democratic party for the next two decades.

   Niven's biography is generally favorable although he doesn't hide Van Buren's flaws. We learn of a man who was not a great ideologue but was one of the most masterful politicians of his era, holding his own with the often more prominent figures such as Jackson, Calhoun, Clay and Webster. He also wound up being a prominent figure in the anti-slavery movement, even running on the Free-Soil ticket at one point.

   At times, however, this biography is a bit ponderous and often focuses so much on the political part of Van Buren's life that the personal part is pushed aside. Thus, although this may be the best Van Buren biography available (it may also be the only one), I cannot give it a full five stars. Nonetheless, this is overall a very good book and worth reading if you are interested in this period of history.




3. Like others, I've set out to read at least one biography on each American President. This particular biography is extremely well researched. A myriad of detail about Martin Van Buren and his times is presented. It's not the book if you are looking for a brief summary of the highlights of Van Buren's career, but if you are looking for detail it's great. Occasionally I got a little lost, probably due to my relative ignorance of the political figures and movements of those times. You form a definite picture of the little magician with both flaws and strengths brought forward. The one significant historical event that I didn't read about was the interaction of Van Buren with the early Mormons, of which I have read some very interesting things elsewhere.



4. I came away from this book with a new appreciation for Martin Van Buren--who was certainly much more than the Jackson coattail rider I thought previously. This is THE definitive biography of Martin Van Buren, but I agree with the other reviewers that some of the many and DETAILED accounts of the political machinations in New York at the time were a bit much. That's really the only complaint I had about the book. I thoroughly enjoyed reading it and recommend it highly if you really want to know Van Buren.



5. I am currently reading a biography of every President in order. I realize with Martin Van Buren I am entering a long period of obscure Presidents, but very much looking forward to learning more about the chief executives between Jackson and Lincoln. Based on Amazon reviews, I decided that John Niven's biography was the best and most comprehensive choice.
   
   Thankfully, I have not been disappointed. John Niven has written a readable and extremely well researched biography of our eigth President. I was most impressed with the depth of detail Niven has included and the voluminous research it undoubtedly required. Niven has clearly succeeded in covering the public life of Martin Van Buren comprehensibly and succinctly from his early days in New York politics to his final years as an active participant in the political turmoil leading to the Civil War.
   
   The thoroughness this volume achieves regarding the political side of Van Buren's life comes at a price, however. At times this book is a dull read and seems to provide more detail, especially in the first third of the book dealing with New York machine politics, than most readers are likely to want or need. The book also does not delve very deeply into the personal side of Van Buren's life, although given that Van Buren's entire life revolved around politics (certainly far more than any previous President) this leaves fewer gaps than one might expect.
   
   In summation, this is an excellent biography of Van Buren, though Niven obviously intended it to be a scholarly treatment meant primarily for academic level study. This biography is easy to read and well organized, though not the type of book you that you will likely want to read twice.

4 comments about Silvio Berlusconi: Television, Power and Patrimony.

1. Italian politics since 1945 has often seemed too unstable and esoteric for most Americans. Paul Ginsborg's short polemic about Silvio Berlusconi shows why people should pay attention. The Berlusconi phenomenon is an amazing, and quite appalling, one. From 1992 to 1994, it was revealed that the conservative Christian Democratic party, which had held uninterrupted power since the war, was deeply, deeply corrupt. So corrupt in fact, that the revelation caused its disintergration. But instead of the Right losing the next elections, a wealthy businessman came along and simply bought a new political party. Silvio Berlusconi's "Forza Italia" was not a party devoted to political debate and discussion. It was staffed by his cronies and devoted to his political cult. With it he won the elections of 1994, even though he was himself deeply compromised by the old regime. Serious allegations of corruption soon led to his loss of power and his electoral defeated in 1996. But he returned to power in 2001. Now in point of fact, the charges against him are more than just "allegations", as that infamous left-wing rag, The Economist, has pointed out. Berlusconi has perjured himself about his membership in a conspiratorial, anti-democratic, quasi-fascist masonic lodge. (He benefited from an amnesty). In the seventies his keeper of one his (one-horse) stables was a notorious mafioso. His personal lawyer, Cesare Preveti, has been convicted of 11 year and 5 year sentences for corrupting judges, though he remains free on appeal. Berlusconi delays his trials to run up against the limitations laws. He amends the limitations laws to render himself immune. He changes the rules of evidence so that trials will be further delayed. And when all that fails, he passes laws giving himself immunity, while seeking to undermine the independence of the magistrates.
   
   This is bad. And it gets worse. For as Ginsborg notes Berlusconi is still backed by more than 40% of Italians. His defeat in 2006 is by no means a sure thing. Indeed he plans to become a powerful President of the Republic. This despite his judical troubles, an anaemic economy, and support for a massively unpopular war. This despite his failure to simplify administrative procedures, or start promised infrastructure projects, though he has reduced the penalties for accounting fraud. Ginsborg himself is one of the leading historians of modern Italy, and he points out Berlusconi's origins in the Milan building trade. He points out how Berlusconi benefited from the intervention of the infamously corrupt Bettino Craxi, who in 1984 ignored the courts and constitutional mandates for a proper broadcasting law to pass a decree without which Berlusconi could not maintain his broadcasting monopoly. (He also points out how Craxi was the godfather of Berlusconi's child out of wedlock, and how Berlusconi comically elides his adultery in discussing the end of his first marriage.) Although Ginsborg tries to be fair, there is not much to be said about about Berlusconi's media: the absence of proper news coverage and documentaries, rampant bias in Berlusconi's favor, more advertisements than the rest of Europe combined, two-hour documentaries about stigmatic priests, a sexism that sometimes seems to have come out of Lolita.
   
   Berlusconi is not a fascist, but he is a threat to democracy. To be exact, he wishes to make democracy safe for the Right and for wealthy people like himself. One should be wary of a man who claims "Better fascism than the bureaucratic tyranny of the judiciary." The party euphemizes the fascist past, with public places and spaces named after "acceptable" fascists and with Berlusconi claiming that Mussolini didn't murder anyone. Whether it is the Bank of Italy, the civil service, public broadcasting, magistrates or the public health system, all have their independence and integrity threatened by Berlusconi. Meanwhile he deals with Murdoch and his own media empire as if conflict of interest laws don't exist, which in Italy they don't. His model polity is a world in which mass apathy is punctuated by his biased media and his political image, where people consent, but do not choose. Ginsborg points out how this project is encouraged by the weaknesses of a centre-left which, purged of its Marxist past, cannot seek to mobilize support, which seeks to compromise and which cannot inspire with its technocratic biases, and which, for one reason or another, cannot attack Berlusconi's venality. Ginsborg's book is not perfect (a law undermining magisterial independence is not made clear, while Ginsborg overestimates the influence of the late Canadian media lord Izzy Aspser). But in an era with declining voter turnout and declining independent media, where media monopoly advances with partisan and unscrupulous conservative politics, and where the left, the centre, and the right-centre are too nervous and exhausted to resist, there are good reasons to fear that Berlusconi's Italy could soon be our world.



2. The author of this book knows how to dramatizize politics. "...something important is happening in Italy, potentially quite sinister, and the seeming normality of life serves to mask it very well." If only it were just a fiction. "Silvio Berlsconi" is a great book on the current state of democracy in Italy, the kind of "modern democracy" heralded by Berlusconi's media empire. If the dictators of the early 20th century have been characterizes as "charismatic leaders" pied pipering away their cults of personality, then today's dictator can be thought of as the sort of highly tailored, well edited "iconic leader," the guy who just LOOKS RIGHT for the job. (Paul Ginsbourg includes a hilarious anecdote in the post-script about Berlusconi who, at a recent press conference, showed up with a face lift he had gotten over Christmas and then proceeds to make the most unfortunate analogy: "The communists...tried to have a face lift in order to hide their real identity, but theirs failed.")
   As relentlessly critical as Ginsbourg is to Berlusconi, it is hard to ignore the facts of his presidency, both rise to and the policies to follow. It is also hard to ignore the remarkable similarity between the current state of Italian politics and those of the U.S. As Ginsbourg writes, "All this will have a familiar ring in Anglo-Saxon ears."
   Democracy is becoming increasingly about television and leadership about being televised. What happens to "freedom" in a community connected only by cable? Ginsbourg makes a couple claims of his own, but the exciting aspect of the book is the fact that it raises such questions at all.



3. Ginsborg is truly a master of italian history, society, and politics. I am not at all surprised with the overwhelming expertise displayed is this book, seeing as all Ginsborg's works display the extent of his knowledge and literary skill. A great "riassunto" of Berlusconi from youth to today, and fairly non-partisan.



4. This book is well written and really tells the story of berlusconis rise, but it is biased against Berlusconi.

5 comments about The JFK Assassination Debates: Lone Gunman Versus Conspiracy.

1. The assassination of President Kennedy in 1963 was a monumentally important event in American history. The question of who did it...and why...still reverberates today. This book attempts to present a balanced view of the lone gunman theory vs the conspiracy theory by stating the basics of the case for each point of view. It then states the 'consensus...Facts' and issues a weak tilt towards 'conspiracy' by pointing to a lack of evidence implicating Oswald and the problems with the single bullet theory. This would have been a fine scholarly effort 20 years ago but in 2006 there is a lot of new factual information that the book does not mention.
   
   The evidence in the Kennedy killing primarily consists of eyewitness accounts, photographic evidence, medical evidence from the autopsy, and a small amount of physical evidence gathered at the crime scene. Michael Kurtz accepts all of the photographic evidence as genuine, most particularly the Zapruder film, even though much credible work by David Lifton, James Fetzer, David Mantik, and others have amassed convincing proof that the film was carefully altered. Even if Kurtz ignores the compelling line-of-sight geometric analyses that have established the film's alteration, he does not address the fact that the Zapruder film does not show the appearance of the gaping wound on the rear of Kennedy's skull, the movements by Moorman and Hill, nor the huge blood spatter that covered motorcycle officers riding behind and to the LEFT of the limousine. He also does not consider that the Zapruder film shows a gruesome wound to the right side of the president's head that was not observed by any of the doctors at Parkland Hospital only minutes later. He does acknowledge, however, that some of the autopsy photos showing such a head wound were obviously fraudulent which leaves an unresolved conflict in his position.
   
   In 2006, the 'autopsy' has been so thoroughly discredited that no serious effort would give it any weight. No one can even agree any longer as to who took the pictures at the autopsy, what was photographed, and what is shown in the photographs. The wounds in Kennedy's back and neck were never dissected to establish the path of the bullets. For all intents and purposes, a real autopsy, such as would be performed on any derelict body found on a city street today, never took place. The only thing that the autopsy establishes today is that Kennedy had a lot of brain damage and that was probably what killed him. Kurtz misses all of this and instead confines himself to a brief discussion about problems with the autopsy photos, which is where researchers of the autopsy began 20 years ago but have since traveled a great distance, a journey that Kurtz has missed.
   
   Finally, Kurtz gets through the evidence, determines that a conspiracy occurred, attempts to analyze who the conpirators might have been, and runs through the usual vague list of suspects: cubans, organized crime, and the CIA. Kurtz completely ignores, however, the one person who had the power to implement a subsequent federal cover-up, who had an overwhelming motive, and who had the opportunity presented by the visit of the President to his native Texas: Vice-president Lyndon B. Johnson. This is the single most glaring omission in a book with many omissions. A lot of information has been published on Johnson in the last few years that points the finger of suspicion directly at him but Kurtz never mentions it. Finally, Kurtz never mentions the potential complicity of some members of the Secret Service in the killing. The facts are that the Secret Service detail removed the body from the hospital at gunpoint, began washing the blood off of the presidential limousine while it was still parked at the hospital ER (there's a photo of this being done), and flew the limousine (which was the crime scene) back to the White House Garage in Washington DC within a few hours of the assassination and then had Ford Motor Company personnel clean the upholstery, replace the windshield, and replace the carpet a few days later. It is also a fact that many eye witnesses reported that the limousine drastically slowed or stopped at the time of the shooting, which was contrary to their training. Kurtz never mentions any of this other than to claim that it was Jacqueline Kennedy who insisted that the Secret Service abscond with the body back to Washington DC before an autopsy could be performed in Dallas, although he offers no evidence for this assertion. Kurtz also makes an odd claim on p116 that Oswald had time to fire more than three shots. This is something that no one else has claimed and, again, Kurtz offers no evidence for this.
   
   In the end, this book presents an old, incomplete view of the Kennedy asassination that tends to obsure the real progress that has been made by dozens of independent researchers in the last few years towards a resolution of the case.



2. Michael Kurtz is to be commended for delivering a fantastic overview of the JFK assassination case at this late juncture (2006). Of most value are Kurtz's personal interviews with sundry medical personnel and even three former Secret Service agents: Roy Kellerman (deceased 1984; I spoke/ corresponded with his widow June), William Greer (deceased 1985; I spoke to his son Richard), and Robert Bouck (deceased 2004; I spoke to Bouck 9/27/92). I am on 3 pages of this book. Get it!!!



3. The chapter on the intelligence community does not go into the CIA but Castro. This is a trick lawyers use. Everyone did it but my client. The CIA is out there looking for the real killers along with O.J.



4. Professor Kurtz complied a book of essays in which he compared and contrasted conspiracy theories and the official mythology. What was missing was the scholarship that one would expect from a professor of his standing.
   
   I was expecting an analytical critique of conspiracy theories' and the offical mythology's critical themes. It was not there. The assassination debate was the equivalent dialogue between bar patrons. Both sides remained basically unchallenged because neither could cite the documntary basis for their positions, the documentary basis being the foundation for academic scholarship. What a pity that I was duped into buying a book based on the author's credentials that were not in evidence.



5. A unbiased book that offers both sides of the JFK debate and the supporting evidence for each, sounds great right? And things are rolling along pretty smoothly until Kurtz can't resist wedging in his nonsensical viewpoint in a chapter hilariously "consensus", which is filled with misleading statements("There's no proof whatsoever the rifle was fired that day". No such test exists), ridiculous standards of proof("Nobody photographed the bullet on the governor's stretcher"), supposed scientific findings with no no citations, and outright omissions of fact(Kennedy's head snapping forward). Kurtz'z allegations are seemingly devoid of the recognition that basic extension of logic entailing them leads invariably to oblivion. Hilariously, although Kurtz is disturbed by the lack of proof of CE 399 actually being found on Governor Connally's stretcher, he seems untroubled by his own assertion that it is "unknown" what happened to the bullets that were "undoubtedly" fired at President Kennedy from the front.
   
   Do not swallow the disingenuous "detached and unbiased" hook. This book is simply another in a large stack of conspiracy nonsense.