4 comments about George Washington's Mount Vernon: At Home in Revolutionary America.

1. For an Architect practicing in any era since Monticello was built, it has always been easy to enter into Jefferson's process--to commune with the models and the methods he sat down with as he designed (time and again) the house that he built as a monument to his ideas and his place in history. In part, this has been because he planned and drew much as we do today. We have the drawings. We know (and can quickly avert our eyes from) the form of labor. We can hold these two-dimensional maps up to the brilliant artifact, and be satisfied, with ourselves, that we have made a connection to the past. Mount Vernon, however, has had to wait for the Dalzells to read, for us, the full and fully three-dimensional process of its becoming. This beautifully written book brings to George Washington's home, a context of meaning and National symbolism that time and distance had almost obliterated. The book is a restoration project: and as such, it is a key compliment to the preservation work so ably executed over the years by the Mount Vernon Ladies Association. I heartily recommend this book to architects (amateur and professional), their clients (who may find comfort in learning that building has always been a trial), architectural historians, or anyone at all who is curious about the faithfulness of our democracy to the designs of one of its primary draftsmen.



2. Mount Vernon was both architecturally innovative and a true mirror of Washington's feelings and mind. He never wrote an autobiography and his diaries consist largely of farm accounts, but in Mount Vernon, the authors write, "he produced a text from which it is possible to coax a remarkably full sense of his political convictions and of how, over time, they changed." The book, George Washington's Mount Vernon, combines the public and the private sides of his life and uses the combination to enrich our understanding of both.



3. I openned this book expecting to read a story about a house and how it was built. I was surprised, and impressed, to discover that what went on as Mt. Vernon took form was far more interesting than I had expected. This is not so much a book about a house as it is the story of how George Washington related to the slaves on whom he relied to execute his architecture. In other words, the story here reverberates far beyond the boundaries of the plantation. It went to the heart of the republic, and it goes to the heart of this nation. Slavery is encoded in our national DNA (sorry, Jefferson). The Dalzells make it clear that it is also mortared in the wood and plaster (cut and painted to look like stone) of our national edifice. Are you tormented, or at least intrigued, that a slaveowner could style himself father of a republic dedicated to freedom? Maybe Washington was, too. Find out. Visit Mt. Vernon, and do it by reading this book.



4. Knowing Professor Dalzell and Mrs. Dalzell personally, I was incredibly curious to see how they blended the two seemingly connected but perhaps contrasting topics of George Washington and his home. Essentially, they were connected very successfully. The entire history of the home itself is told vividly with photographs, anecdotes, and objective descriptions of its development. Following, Washington's own personal, military, and political history is told in light of the times, and in the book's shining ability, in relation to the home itself. The Dalzell's cleverly-melded arguments and discussions leads the reader to a full knowledge of Mt. Vernon and its inspiring owner.

5 comments about God and George W. Bush: A Spiritual Life.

1. are not part of the gospel of Jesus Christ. That so many think that Bush is a man of god shows how little the gospels are actually read. Jesus had only disdain for the rich and endless compassion for the poor and marginalized. Yet Bush's tax cuts are mostly for the rich and his drug program for seniors greatly aids big pharma. And Bush lied us into the war in Iraq and continues to lie every time he says the war there makes this country safer, when our own national intelligence estimates show that it does not.
   Shame, Mr Bush.



2. I don't believe that God would have anything to do with this man. It's time to get un-programmed, America. Start thinking outside of your cage and see this man for what he is - a patron of evil. Mr. Bush has successfully passed the so-called "Patriot Act" that can and eventually will take away your God-given unalienable rights. How many rights will you loose before you draw your line in the sand? He has no regard for the Constitutional Republic that this country was founded on, instead he insists on a Democracy. Spying on Americans is OK with Mr. Bush. Our borders are left unguarded while our children die in a war for oil. Mr. Bush has said that "it would be easier if this were a dictatorship, as long as I'm the dictator". That statement when heard is chilling to say the least. Would God inspire a man to say something like that? I strongly doubt it. Wake up America! We're being led down the road to tyranny by this man! Don't support him by buying this book. Buy a bible instead.



3. It's only fair to read both sides of the story. Therefore after a couple of books critical of George W. Bush and the Religious/Christian Right/Conservatives I figured it's only fair to read one in support of the former, most likely it being in support of the latter too.
   
   So after "With God On Their Side", after "Roads To Dominion", after "Close Encounters With The Religious Right", after "What's Wrong With Kansas?" and after "The Faith Of George W. Bush" by Stephen Mansfield I read this one. And going for full disclosure, I also read "Fortunate Son" by James Hatfield.
   
   And the last one 'enjoys' an infamous reputation of being a full fledged dismantling of GWB. However, Hatfield's book still stroke me as being more fair, more balanced and all in all more neutral in tone, than this cheerleading effort by Paul Kengor.
   
   My tolerance ended on page 210 when there was a paragraph implying that Saddam Hussein was involved in the events of September 11. Before you jump at me and talk about the 'atmosphere' of support that was in Iraq for the terrorists and for Al Qaida, that's not even what Kengor is writing about. He's basically saying that Saddam was about as much involved as you can get, shy from flying one of the planes himself. And that is just false.
   
   This shows Kengor's agenda. And that's why it does not come as a surprise that he leaves out the US support for Saddam during the Iran vs Iraq war (a war he also writes about, plus he mentions "He tried to kill my dad.") Just like "Faith & George W. Bush" he also leaves out 'those missing years', the controversy about his guard service, how he failed as a business man, etc. etc. etc. instead doing his best effort to characterize and portray Bush as messianic and infallible as possible, without being blasphemous about it.
   
   Therefore the conclution is: it's a biased effort by a supporter, who sugarcoats everything the man does, putting him on a pedestal, glorifying him unquestionably.
   
   And I don't like that. I believe that there's always two sides to a story. That's why I read this book after all. A good book to me shows both sides, albeit it may put the emphasis on one. However, this one doesn't. Oh, not even remotely.



4. The title itself is unintentionally funny. Waging a war of aggression, benefiting the rich instead of the poor---please. If Bush is spiritual,
   then God help us all.



5. When Mr. Bush came to Washington seven years ago, he came with great optimism to do great things. Then, destiny took a hand and turned the world upside down. And, in the middle of it all was this man who had been placed there for such a time as that. Difficult times required difficult decisions and he made them. Some hated him for it, most supported him but in time, many grew weary of him. He was the prominent symbol of one of the most trying times in America's history. While the page will enevitably be turned, I pray the America I love does not regress to the politics of unsubstantative, mindless, flowery rhetoric of most of the 1990's. I like to think that this nation - most of it - has finally grown up and left behind all hippie narcissm. I am one of the 30%(if the polls are correct) who still support the President. It's easy to criticize in hind sight. But, he has done what he's believed to be right as best as he has been able to given the support and resources around him. I recommend this book. Buy it, read it and say a prayer for this great man.

No comments about How Presidents Test Reality: Decisions on Vietnam 1954 and 1965.

4 comments about Tony Blair: Prime Minister.

1. With the advent of what may become the second Gulf War, Tony Blair-Prime Minister is a comprehensive biography of the leader of America's closest ally. Prime Minister Tony Blair is an unlikely choice to be the foreign leader closest to President George W. Bush. British Journalist, John Rentoul has written about the rise and times of Tony Blair from his roots in a middle class British family to that of a rising socialist politician who became leader of the "New" Labor Party and Prime Minister of Great Britian.

   Rentoul traces Blair's family and their political leanings. Blair's father Leo Blair was born to a pair of actors and given to a James and Mary Blair in Glasgow. Leo Blair as a teenager was a member of the Scottish Young Communist League and had ambitions to become a Communist Member of Parliment. However, after service in World War II as a member of the Royal Signal Corps, Leo Blair underwent a political conversion. Upon leaving the military he became a member of the Conservative Party. Leo Blair married Blair's mother Hazel from a strongly Protestant family from County Donegal while working at the Ministry of National Insurance in Glasgow. Leo Blair studied law eventually becoming a lecturer in Administrative Law at the University of Adelaide in Australia and eventually the University of Durham in Durham. Leo Blair eventually became a practicing barrister and active in the local Conservative Party.
   Tony Blair was the second of three children. He is described as being the child most like his father Leo.

   In the opening chapter of the book it states "Tony Blair's political ambition began at age of eleven, when his father Leo's ended, on 4 July 1964. At the age of forty, at the height of his political powers and looking for a Conservative parlimentary seat, Leo Blair had a stroke."

   However, the book indicates that many of Blair's acquaintances during his school and law school years were suprised when he decided to become active in politics. Blair was not a member of any political clubs while in school or in-between. Blair had been a singer and manager of a rock n roll band "The Ugly Rumors", had long hair and a van. Unlike his American political counter parts, he never experimented with drugs, smoked marijuana or was seen drunk. In response to the question of whether he ever smoked marijuana, he said no, but if he had "he would have inhaled" in a jab at his friend President Bill Clinton.
   One of the suprising discoveries found in the book about Tony Blair is his Christian Socialism. Unlike many American politicians not much mention has been made of the fact he has been a confirmed Christian since his Oxford days. Moreover, he is the only British Prime Minister since Gladstone known to regularly read the Bible.
   Tony Blair and his wife Cherie Blair are as political a couple as the Clintons. Both have worked in local politics and both have run for seats in Parliment. When Blair ran his first successful race for his current seat from the Sedgefield Riding, Cherie was seeking a seat in a "marginal" Labor district or riding. However, after Blair won his first election, Cherie decided to forego elective office as one politician was enough in the family. Since Blair's election in Parliment in 1983, the Blairs have had three children and Cherie has continued her career as a successful barrister.
   Over half the book covers Blair's career as leader of the Labor Party and Prime Minister. When he became Prime Minister at age 42, only tweleve years in Parliment, he became the youngest Prime Minister since Lord Liverpool who became Prime Minister in 1812.
   The book is well documented with footnotes after every chapter. Because of its "scholarliness" it may tend to drag at times in the chapters which deal with his years as Prime Minister from May 2, 1997 through the time the book was written in January 2001. As such it chronicles in detail Tony Blair's first term.
   In it, the achievements of the first term include the Balkans, Northern Ireland,as well as helping provide a better standard of living for all of Britian.
   Blair is described as a "hands-on" Prime Minister, informal but energized and possibly hyper-working on the phone from planes, on vacation and on the weekend.
   With as much detail provided of all aspects of Blair's life, TONY BLAIR-Prime Minister gives the reader and the world great insight into Blair's actions now in his second term as Prime Minister.




2. On 4-th of july 1964,Tony was woken by his mother in the morning and as soon as he heard the first words coming out from his mother - he knew that something wasn't right and he was right
   about that.
   Tony's father had a stroke and it wasn't sure whether he's gonna make it or not.
   This day was the day when Tony's childhood ended,a day when his political ambition began, a life which taught him the value of the family and real friends who walked with his family in the worst moments of their lives.

   Tony,a child of strict parents about manners :
   Was always polite,kind,helpful towards other people and he enjoyed the attention so much so when he is only 16 years old he formed a group named The Pseuds - to act.

   Soon, as a 'gifted guitarist' he starts meeting people of the same interest and talked about getting into the music world.
   He loved The Rolling Stones and they were going to be the next Led Zeppelin or Free (Tony's most favorite bands).
   So...the band "Ugly Rumours" is formed and THE LEAD SINGER-with
   a fantastic voice is someone such as : the future prime minister of Great Britain - TONY BLAIR.

   ...John Rentoul's biography of Tony Blair-(was made to read easy as novel, even though it was Tony's life to make that possible). It is a well-researched book and tells just about everything you'd want to know about Tony Blair.




3. John Rentoul's biography of Tony Blair is a must read for those who want to understand him. The book is scholarly enough to use as a text in comparative politics. It also gives enough character development to understand who Blair is, how he was developed as a man and what Britain's youngest Prime Minister in the 20th century is like.
   
   The text certainly gives a clear view of "The Third Way" philosophy of Blair's tenure which eschews unfettered capitalism and old labor socialism. Rentoul also illuminates Blair's Christian moral beliefs without ignoring the character of a young rock musician.
   
   It is the best biography yet of Britain's most dynamic leader.



4. Well five years after publication we find the subject of this book in serious political trouble with members of his own party asking for a date for his resignation. Nobody in the UK believes what he says any longer and his chancellor is waiting in the wings to take over. One star and forget it.

3 comments about Progressive Presidents: Roosevelt, Wilson, and Roosevelt.

1. The Progressive Presidents is a wonderful text, perfect for any American History buff.



2. The Progressive Presidents is a perfect text for any American History fan. You can't go through life without knowing something about these progressives: Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and of course Lyndon B. Johnson.

   Get The Progressive Presidents right away!




3. John Blum's short, but informative book on the Progressive Presidents presents a fairly balanced picture of the presidency after the ascendency of progressivism. The author admits he is a "conventional liberal" who "grew up" with the FDR administration while he "admired" FDR. However, he raises many important questions about the "Imperial Presidency" that this men invented. He admits that in the wake of welfare-statism after LBJ has "provoked reconsideration." This reconsideration owes itself to the progressive presidents continiously testing, exceeding, breaching and redefining constitutional and customary limits to power. For an avowed liberal to even concede that the Presidency at the behest of progressive liberalism has perhaps gone awry is a watershed event.

1 comments about A Puritan in Babylon: The Story of Calvin Coolidge.

1. Ok, so Silent Cal was not one of our greatest Presidents. He was a very honest President, who had a very shy personality. White wrote this biography in the thirties, and knew Calvin. Even though White knew Coolidge, criticism is still present in this biography. The most damning was Coolidge not taking action to prevent the build up of credit and speculation in the stock market. All indications are there that he should have limited money at some point, but Coolidge let the market make its own correction. This was one of the reasons why the market went down so fast.
   White does a good job of showing how someone like Coolidge (and Harding) rose to the top of the heap. Throughout this book, Coolidge is shown as an honest politician who lived off his salary. He even stayed in boarding houses when he was Governor and Vice President. He was very shy and limited his talking. He asked people to vote for him and they did. He only lost one election, so this shows people trusted him. He worked the political system for his constituents and his beliefs. Although conservative, he backed some very liberal ideas at the time including the vote for women and opposed anti immigration efforts against the Japanese. When he told people what he was going to do, people could trust he would do it. He even made fun of himself and his personality. His personal characteristics were very admirable.
   White's biography is a bit dry at times, but the subject comes across in very human terms. The book is divided into four sections, so one can read bits and pieces of that history which may interest the reader. The first one hundred pages was slow going, but it gets better after that. For those interested in a President who governed for six years, this is a good read.

5 comments about Very Strange Bedfellows: The Short and Unhappy Marriage of Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew.

1. As I began to read Jules Witcover's revealing book about the Nixon-Agnew relationship, I thought that this book must have limited appeal....especially to those of us who grew up during that time. Indeed, the author alludes to this point in his preface, but then again, "Very Strange Bedfellows" has overtones for today. One hopes that Witcover has another book in mind as he has already set foot in one of those intriguing relationships from the past... Nixon and Agnew.
   
   Luck more or less got Agnew off on his trajectory and lack of luck finished him off. I didn't know that Agnew had been a Rockefeller man until I began reading the book, and how quickly things changed. The stars were aligned for Agnew. It's no wonder, however, that the smallness of Agnew eventually got him, as Witcover so describes.
   
   The author is the perfect person to write this book. Having assessed the potential of Nixon and Agnew, his narrative is terrific. I lived through that very period and followed the two closely, but Jules Witcover has written an account that covers it all. It's a walk down memory lane. I highly recommend "Very Strange Bedfellows". It uncovers the the behind-the-scenes look at one of the weirdest political connections.



2. Witcover has made a career of hate filled attacks on RN. This book is a cut and paste job with little new to offer.



3. It seems that Mr. Whitcover has covered this before in two previous books. As a previous reviewer said, this is a hatchet job on two of the most misunderstood people to hold the two highest offices in the United States. Yes, they both certainly had their faults and deserved their eventual fates, but there was a lot more to the both of them and Whitcover misses it all. He just simply re hashes the obvious faults and does no other searching. Agnew for one is in dire need of a serious study of his Vice Presidency.



4. I recently read an article by Ben Stein about the sudden outpouring of recent books about Richard Nixon and his presidency. For the most part Stein focuses on Robert Dallek's excellent tome "Nixon and Kissinger" as well as Margaret MacMillan's somewhat overly detailed work, "Nixon and Mao." He referenced this book in passing and referred to Mr. Witcover as, "a third rate journalist." I beg to differ.
   
   In examining the relationship between President Richard Nixon and Vice President Spiro Agnew, Witcover carefully examines one of the most overlooked aspects of his presidency. Witcover definitely draws on research he had done for previous books about Nixon and Agnew, but manages to distinguish this book from other Nixon books.
   
   In the grand scheme of the Nixon presidency, Spiro Agnew is typically an afterthought as the focus usually falls on Watergate, Kissinger, the Vietnam War, the SALT agreement and opening relations with communist China. The book quickly makes clear that Agnew played a minor role, if any, in policy decisions. Witcover is at his best when he explores issues such as Nixon's own self-consciousness and paranoia, especially in his decision to put Agnew on the 68 ticket. He also paints an interesting picture of Agnew, and his ability to offend an entire room in less than three sentences. While he may have been far more elegant than George W. Bush in his choice of words, he owed most of his more memorable lines to William Safire and Pat Buchanan. Witcover's analysis and research makes plain the irony of Nixon's treatment of Agnew, considering Nixon's own gripes about his limited role as Ike's VP.
   
   But the most interesting and unique aspect of this book is the backstory of Nixon's relationship with John Connelly, and his desire to unite with Connelly (then still a Democrat) and start a third party that would shake up American politics as we know it. Nixon's desire to push Agnew off the 72 ticket and replace him with Connelly is well examined and documented by Mr. Witcover, who paints Connelly as one of the few people in Washington that Nixon was constantly in awe of.
   
   We all know how it ended, with Agnew's resignation, Ford's ascension to the VP-slot, and Nixon's own downfall. But if you are interested in a fresh take on an often forgotten chapter of the Nixon presidency, you can't do much better than this book.



5. Jules Witcover is an excellent writer who, unfortunately, sometimes lets his political and philosphical beliefs get in the way. There are various instances in this book where he is just as intent on criticizing conservatives and the Republican Party as criticizing the two main characters -- Nixon and Agnew.
   
   It is obvious that he is and was no fan of President Nixon. In some respect, despite his dislike for Agnew there are places in the book where it seemed Witcover was sympathetic with him. One senses that Agnew, for all his flaws, wanted to be an important member of the Nixon Administration while Nixon and his staff grew to dislike him and tried to relegate him to obscurity. It is no secret that Nixon became enamored with John Connally and would have preferred Connally as his successor. Witcover sees a tormented vice president who wanted to be so much more than what the president would let him be. And then, skeletons came out of the closet to doom the vice president.
   
   Two things stood out that keeps me from rating this higher. First, if Witcover would have left his biases out of the book -- or been more subtle with his biases -- it would have given his account more credibility. As it is, his little digs at not just Nixon and Agnew but the Republican Party and conservatives in general, gives this book more of a flavor of a hatchet job.
   
   Second, and this may seem trivial, but there are no pictures. Other than the cover jacket there are none. Pictures really add a lot to a historical book such as this. I grew up in that era and remember well how the main characters -- Nixon, Agnew, Connally, Haldeman, Erlichman, etc -- looked. But to younger people, the failure to match a face with the people being written about detracts from the book. There could have been pictures of Nixon in the 1968 campaign, the 1968 GOP convention, Nixon and Agnew campaigning in both 1968 and 1972, Agnew giving speeches during the first administration, the investigators and culprits who destroyed Agnew in 1973, Agnew leaving the federal court in Baltimore as a former vice president, both men in their later years, etc. There were so many possibilities of where pictures would have added so much to this book. But there were none.

5 comments about Putin's Russia: Life in a Failing Democracy.

1. The AUTHOR'S NOTE states: "... this book is not an examination of Putin's policies. I am not a political analyst. I am just a person among many, a face in the crowd, like so many.... These are my immediate reactions, jotted down in the margins of life as it is lived in Russia today."
   
   Well, Politkovskaya doesn't all together stick with this decree, but touches upon Putin's "policies" by way of presenting his lack of policy in helping his people.
   
   There are many events detailed in this book: soldiers being beaten and tormented by their commanding officers. Family members trying to find out the truth about their loved one's death, or murder. Corruption plaguing the Russian judicial system. Yury Budanov's kidnapping of a young Chechen girl, her rape and murder trial. Examples of friends the author has known and how their lives (good and bad) have been affected by the changes in the wake of the New Russia. The gangster life being rife throughout Russia, given in the example of Pavel Anatolievich Fedulev. The storming of the Dubrovka Theater in Moscow during the "Nord-Ost" musical by Chechen terrorists wishing to end the war, and how the government unleashed an unknown gas that ended up killing 200 hostages. The waging of "Antiterrorist Operation Whirlwind" that caused the Chechen people living in Russia to be harassed, framed, and forced to sign confessions that they plotted the attack; many were sent to prison or lost their jobs. According to Politkovskaya it was "Putin's belief that an entire people must shoulder collective responsibility for the crimes committed by a few" pg 224. The hostage situation in the town of Beslan on the day of "Lineyka," the celebration of the beginning of school when many families were at the school. 100 people went missing and the government said that they fled with the terrorists (hu?).
   
   One can't deny that something is happening in Russia. But I can't say I was won over with Politkovskaya's argument that Putin is entirely to blame for it's current state. This is partly due to the author's writing style, which must have been affected by the translation process (there are many words and phrases that come off sounding disjointed), which make for weak arguments. The stories Politkovskaya's shares with us are stories we outsiders have heard for a number of years under the old Soviet Union. Just because one has a new government everything cannot be expected to change quickly. It takes time. It does sound like Russia has reverted to old habits either because that's all its' leader's know, or it's their intentions to align themselves with communist ways in order to gain more power for themselves. The truth is, I don't know what progress has been made under Putin, and certainly you wont find any in Politkovskaya's book. The problem is that politics usually attract power and corruption. Place people with this tendency in a government rife with corruption and things are bound to fail. Unless Russia can find someone courageous enough to stand up to it, willing to put their life on the line, I fail to see how things will ever change.
   
   One things for sure, I'm always amazed by the resilience of the Russian people. I always get a strong sense that they love their country dearly and want nothing more than to live in a free society where the rules are fair. Hopefully one day they will have this. Unfortunately the fact that Politkovskaya died for writing stories like this shows how far Russia still has to go in acheiving freedom.
   
   
   Chapters:
   "My Country's Army and Its Mothers"
   "Our New Middle Ages, or War Criminals of All the Russias"
   "Tanya, Misha, Lena, and Rinat: Where Are They Now?"
   "How to Misappropriate Property with the Connivance of the Government"
   "More Stories from the Provinces"
   "Nord-Ost: The Latest Tale of Destruction"
   "Akaky Akakievich Putin II"
   "Postscripts"
   "Notes"



2. A must read for all those contemplating on working, investing, living, or visiting Russia and before more authoritarian restrictions are implemented (or should I say the "New Soviet Russia" is completed?).
   
   Ana Politkovskaya's book is a fast read, but the truthful descriptions may be shocking to some. For me, it brought back dark memories from my years working and living there. There is so much increadible [underlined] poverty outside the major cities (e.g., Moscow, St. Petersburg, etc.) and so much more she could have continued writing about... unfortunately, because there is no real free press anymore (& as far as I know, her books have never been published or sold in Russia) the majority of Russian citizens are misinformed and uninformed.
   
   On the other hand, Russia is a vast and beautiful country and it's people (the "real" people) amiable, warm, and very hospitable (once they get to know you). The citizens want so much more for their country, but are afraid to make concrete changes in a unified manner, may not know how to move forward due to conditioning and oppression from the old and new regimes, or are terrified of reprisals. Thus, the current leadership is dismantling Russia's constitution, eliminating the opportunity for real democracy, and is building a "New Iron Curtain" behind the old one.
   
   Again, a must read!



3. I had seen a piece on tv about Anna and the plight of journalism in Russia, so decided I had to learn more. I could not put this book down. Her courage in face of insurmountable danger for journalists during the Putin regime should humble any American journalist. I am saddened by the fact that she along with many other Russian journalists, ended up a victim of the very regime she wrote so bravely about.
   
   I was also a bit taken back by some of the Putin regime activities that we could corrolate to recent political events in the U.S.
   
   I think this book should be required reading in any/all high school and college journalism and political science classes.



4. Having read only a portion of the book i can only express mild shock due to the fact that power corrupts and absolute power absolutly corrupts.Mr Putin has much to ansewr for,whether he does will remain to be seen.
   Anna Politcovskaya has to be admired for her courage,in the face of intimidation and death threats. To fearlessly pursue the truth and seek to expose a corrupt regime,provides us in the west with a most worthy example as long as we dont hold too dearly our life or reputation.This is very much like America with George and his cronies re:911 and New Zealand which is similar in that Mz Clark has a small group of people around her who are changing the social landscape of the country to fit their idea of a modern,all inclusive society, and blatently ignoring the express wishes of the people.May she enjoy her imminent retirement.A country or corporation,business will only grow and prosper according to the wishes,goals and desires of its leaders,be they people of integrity or corrupted by the privilege of power.



5. Politkovskaya's book is important in the sense as it gives a voice to people that is not heard in other books about contemporary Russia. Especially the chapter "Tanya, Misha, Lena and Rinat - Where are they now?" where she looks up people that she used to know in the 70s, gives a remarkable description of personalities that anyone that gets to know Russian's personally will be able to recognize.
   
   A weekness of this approach is that it is difficult to recognize and appreciate theese personality-types without personally knowing ehough Russians to see what she is talking about. Unless you know Russians personaly it will also be difficult to experience and take in, how many simply will refuse to read, know and take in her story either becuase it is something they have decided to act as if theese things never happened - focusing on this is negative, or simply because they are very emotionally difficult to discuss. This attitude and feelings among ordinary Russians is in my view farmore important than the authorities attitudes towards her writing.
   
   I agree with the other reviews that claim her writing is very emotional. This is a problem because it makes me suspicious of her writing, even when what she tells is probably compleately true. By being less emtional she would undoubtful come through as more trustworthy, that is especially important because we to a large degree only have her side of the stroy to hold on to. Though considerably more moderate than Litvinenko and Felshtinsky's "Blowing up Russia", I find myself having some of the same mixed emotions about some of the consparicy-like claims that come up in the book, where we only have whether we belive the author or not to hold on to. Though experience have learned me that few seemingly over-the-top fantastic rumours can be ruled out when it comes to Russian politics, I am still laved with mixed emotions.
   
   Her personal aproach also leave the basic, structural facts that is important to understand contemporary Russia in the background. Gaidar has used the relevant comparison of Russia in the 90s with the last similary desperate economic situation in Germany in the 30s. About 15 years after the democrasy was established in Germany, Hitler came to power under similar economic conditions. Who ever Putin is, he is like a boy-scout in that perspective. Politkovaskaya fails to give the political and economical understanding to put things into perspective. As another review states, you will not find what progresses Russia has made under Putin in this book. It is not that critical though, as long one can get that perspective from other books. Polikovskaya gives an understanding of the people acting under this cicumstantions that I have seen no other books on contemporary Russia.
   
   Especially Politkovskaya have written other books and articles on Chechnya, I think Chechnya has got too much coverage in the book, compared to other topics. It might be that she should have chosen a different title, instead of writing relatively less about Chechnya though. It is nothing wrong woth writing many books about Chechnya, it is just that the topic "Putin's Russia" is considerably broader than that.
   
   Another review claims you can not find Politkovskayas books in Russia. I can confirm that I have found them in English in ordinary book-stores and Russian friends confirms they have fond them too.
   
   Do read this book. Make sure you fill out the picture with other books on the Putin era and the political and economical development in Post-USSR Russia though.

1 comments about FDR: Nothing to Fear.

1. This is a great book. FDR may be a favorite of yours or not, regardless his speeches desereve to be read. FDR was an inspirational speaker who moved the masses with his words. He has left us with many timeless and priceless quotes that can be found in the speeches featured in this book. I would highly recommend this book to any one looking for a boost in confidence. FDR's words make you feel like anything is possible. Remember "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself".

2 comments about The Presidency of Calvin Coolidge (American Presidency Series).

1. The thirty-second volume in the acclaimed American Presidency Series presents a complex man and his struggles to solidify the economy and use cautious diplomacy in foreign affairs. Contrary to popular opinion, Robert Ferrell argues that Calvin Coolidge worked vigorously to achieve successful legislation and his dedication to public service provided him with a good background for the presidency from 1923 to 1929. The author, however, does recognize that Coolidge sometimes waited out troubles, acted indecisively, and displayed inactivity in foreign relations. For example, Ferrell avers that the president and his ministers incompetently handled political problems in Nicaragua and economic instability in Mexico. Also, the author acknowledges that Coolidge did not grasp the economic currents of his time.

   Ferrell raises the question in this study: "Why did Coolidge not do more to deal with economic matters and consult with his advisors?" Perhaps the author answers this question in mentioning the Federal Reserve's reluctance to intervene in monetary policy and stock market speculation. In addition, Ferrell analyzes Coolidge's political philosophy on two counts: his opposition to governmental paternalism and belief in laissez-faire economy. In fact, Ferrell writes that Coolidge cut income taxes drastically; by 1927, 98 percent of the population paid no income tax.

   The Presidency of Calvin Coolidge judges the president in an objective manner and uses extensively researched primary and secondary sources. The author, however, does tend to use quotes excessively and this may irritate some readers. Besides, Ferrell gives a vivid account about society in the 1920s, but his information about automobiles appears repetitive at times in this book. Furthermore, Ferrell suggests that to blame Coolidge for lack of foresight in not preventing the holocausts of our time seems unhistorical. Yet, a historian does indeed judge people and historical events both diachronically and synchronically. Overall, Fer! rell admirably addresses Coolidge's strengths and weaknesses in an analytical framework. Finally, the photographs add a realistic vision about Coolidge and his times.




2. This is an awful book for two primary reasons: 1. It portrays Coolidge in the unfair, stereotypical light that people have done for decades. (thus it lacks any new thought) 2. The book, mechanically speaking, is also poor. It is difficult to read, dry, and gives the reader no incentive to continue reading. The only reason I gave Ferrell a second star is because he is smart enough to pick a good topic to write his book about.