5 comments about First Fathers: The Men Who Inspired Our Presidents.

1. Fascinating and well-written look at the fathers of all 43 American Presidents--many well-known, many less so. Gives a great perspective on the forces that shaped our nation's leaders and, in many cases, explains a lot about their values, political philosophies and sources of inspiration. I cannot recommend highly enough this timely and wonderful book.



2. The author eloquently serves up a biographical feast of the fathers of the leaders! It's not so much an ideological review of the fathers' influences on the Presidents but an analysis of the influence (or lack of) influence the men had fostering. The most interesting review if that of Andrew Grant and his father's strict upbringing, without which, we would not have had this military leader and President.



3. I realized after reading this book how much of what I read here was totally new to me, although I have read a good deal about the presidents. It seems, though, that much more focus is always put on the mothers of presidents, and the fathers are somewhat overlooked. I really enjoyed learning what sort of fathers inspired their sons to be presidents!
   
   This book is scholary and well written. At times, the language is a bit formal and for my taste, a little overly flowery. It has the feel of a book written in the early part of the 1900s---which is certainly not all a bad thing! It's not written in the casual style of so many books today.
   
   I was especially fascinated to read about Teddy Roosevelt's father. I had no idea he was such a well loved person, and as the author says, the closest to a perfect father of any profiled here. The story of Gerald Ford's birth father and then his step-father should be an inspiration to step-fathers everywhere.
   
   Definately worth a read!



4. After reading it myself, I decided that this was the perfect gift for my father this past Father's Day. He loved it, and it opened up a great conversation about the role of dads in general. I highly recommend this book as a gift for the birthday or or other celebration of a father in your life.



5. I have always been interested in presidential history, but except for Joe Kennedy, James Roosevelt and Theodore Roosevelt, Sr., I haven't read much about the fathers of our presidents. Harold Gullan fills in the gaps with his interesting but lightweight First Fathers: The Men Who Inspired Our Presidents.
   
   In First Fathers, the author looks at the lives of 42 fathers and two step-fathers. It is interesting to draw comparisons between these men, even though some of their lives were very different. Many of the early presidents lost their fathers at a very young age. Some went from rags to riches, while others did just the opposite. If you had to pick characteristics that the majority of them shared, three things seem to be the common denominators. First, they valued education, even if they themselves were not educated. Most saw that their sons received the best education that they could afford. Second, they were adventurous and ambitious. Many were willing to risk everything at the chance for a better life. And finally, a large number of them were public spirited and believed in public service. Probably more fathers served as justices of the peace than any other public job.
   
   First Fathers is filled with lots of trivia, presidential and otherwise. These include first president born in a log cabin (Jackson), first born in a hospital (Carter), first US citizen elected president (Van Buren), first born west of the Mississippi (Hoover), first bachelor president (Buchanan), first president married in the White House (Cleveland), and first father to outlive his president son (Harding). There is more information on some fathers than others, which makes for uneven reading. Some fathers warrant their own chapters, while others are lumped together.
   
   First Fathers is an interesting book, although it is more of a superficial overview as opposed to a deep, scholarly work. Still, it's a good place to start to give us information on how first fathers motivated their more famous sons. Gullan also wrote Faith of Our Mothers:The Stories of Presidential Mothers from Mary Washington to Barbara Bush, which I have yet to read. I imagine it is a good companion book to First Fathers.

5 comments about Reagan's America: Innocents at Home.

1. COvering much of the same ground as Edmund Morris in his authorized biography, "Dutch," Garry Wills' "Reagan's America: Innocents at Home" is a much more successful look at the institutions and country that shaped the 40th President.

   With his usual incisive analysis and beautiful use of the English language, Wills does what Morris found impossible: the discovery of Reagan's soul.

   To Wills, Reagan is the logical product of the American heartland and of the institutions of the heartland: community service (he was a lifeguard first), small town media (he was a Des Moines, IA, radio announcer). Reagan is also shaped by the institutions of coastal America that are marketed to the heartland: movies and big business (when Reagan made the final turn toward conservatism, he was the national spokesman for General Electric). Finally, Reagan is also the product of a dysfunctional family, with some of the same logical results: a withholding from others, a love of the abstract and of fantasy.

   At the end of Wills' study, the reader gains a clear impression of the forces that created Ronald Reagan and bonded him to the American people. It is true that Reagan, as Morris argues, is enigmatic. But he is not impossible to begin to understand. Wills is the essential guide to the Reagan who was fully formed long before he reached the White House.




2. Those who criticize Wills for "sloppy work" are off base and clearly have an ax to grind. On the other hand, this book is not a "consummate" piece of work, either. The task of writing a Reagan biography is virtually impossible. Edmund Morris tried to do it and wound up with a botched, absurd, fictionalized mess.

   Wills doesn't pretend that this book is a biography. It's actually an essay in book-length form (41 short chapters, perhaps a botched attempt at writing 40 chapters to match Reagan's status as 40th president) meditating on specific episodes from Reagan's life, particularly his childhood, adolescence, and initial career as sportscaster, movie star, and Screen Actors Guild president, and the relation of Reagan's life and self-image, and his construction of that image, with the perceptions of America, particularly in connection with the mythmaking of Americans -- their propensity to willfully forget the reality of the American past in order to build a version of the past that serves as a comforting and communal illusion in a time of unprecedented chaos and change. Reagan, Wills explains, is the perfect emblem of that illusion: "The power of his appeal is the great joint confession that we cannot live with our real past, that we not only prefer but need a substitute."

   Wills' book is not the hatchet job that some make it out to be. He clearly has a respect for Reagan's story, his communicating magic, and his ability as a public figure to unite the American people behind a common purpose, even if that purpose is largely mythical. Nor is the book the testimony to sainthood that many of Reagan's admirers would want. It is clearly critical of Reagan's forgetfulness, his willingness to simplify, his urge to blur distinctions and to make up details of his own life and of American history out of thin air.

   It is for the most part a balanced book, although it does not, unfortunately, do any justice to the man's time as President, which is the most significant part of Reagan's legacy. The book was published in 1987, but it really ends with the war against Grenada in 1983, saying virtually nothing about Reagan's presidency and life beyond that point other than a very brief mention of the 1984 campaign and several (too many) mentions of the movie "Back to the Future" (at one point Wills confuses the movie's date of release, saying that Reagan mentioned it in his 1982 State of the Union address; the movie was released in 1985). Wills also touches on some events of Reagan's first term, but only sketchily.

   Anyone expecting this to be a thorough treatment of Reagan's presidency will be severely disappointed. However, it has a great deal of value as an exposition of the reasons why Reagan was a success, or was perceived as a success, as a president. Its final two chapters, two essays on the relation of Reagan to America and its relation to him, are breathtaking.




3. Mr. Wills is a smart writer who starts his book off comparing what he believes is Mark Twain's America to that of Ronald Reagan's childhood. Wills, in fact, spends a lot of time on Twain's America. The point of this time spent on Twain is to exposed, according to Wills, the imaginary America of Reagan's childhood with that of America plagued with labor and racial strife. Anyone who has spend time reading Twain's Huck Finn knows that the book is a dark portrait of America life, and is not idyllic at all. Although Wills writes well of this period, he doesn't quite pull the trick off, or explain how the memories of childhood can not be happy ones when the outside world may not be so happy. This is a failure of this book. Wills often acts like a hanging Judge stalking someone he obviously despises, yet grudgingly admires. Marshalling his facts to suit himself, he continually points out what he considers flaws in Reagan's character. In doing so, he leaves the readers with a number of false impressions. The most obvious and blatant impression is that Mr. Reagan never enlisted and never served in the Military during World War.
   
   The reality is that three months after Pearl Harbor, Ronald Reagan received a letter from the War Department telling him to report to Fort Mason in San Francisco. He reported to Col. Philip T. Booker and served first as a liaison officer loading convoys. Because Ronald Reagan had terribly poor eyesight, the Military confined him non-combat roles. Later Col. Booker informed Reagan that he had been transferred to Army Air Force Intelligence in Los Angeles. His commanding officer was Gen. Hap Arnold. There he was assigned to make Army Air Force training films and documentaries, and given the rank of second lieutenant. He eventually wound up as adjutant and personal officer for his unit. One of his jobs was to prepare classified films about the progress of the war to be shown to members of the general staff in Washington. Some of these films included Nazi films about their Death Camps. Reagan was eventually promoted to the rank of Captain. From 1942 to 1947, Reagan made only three films for Hollywood. All were made in 1943. The most famous was This is the Army. Many members of the cast of this movie were members of the Armed Services. Reagan himself is listed in it as Lt. Ronald Reagan. Boxer Joe Louis who is also in the film is listed in the cast as Sgt. Joe Louis. You can find the complete cast list at http://imdb.com/title/tt0036430/fullcredits . There you will find listed, at least, 21 members of the Armed Services with roles in this film. This film was made with the co-operation of the Armed Services. Warner Brothers gave all the profits, estimated to be around $10 million, to the Army Emergency Relief. Stallion Road was the first picture Reagan made after the War.
   
   Thousands of people served the War Effort in War World 2. Not everyone enlisted. Thousands served in the U.S. Merchant Marines. Their service was important to the War Effort, so was that of those men and woman who worked in the factories that manufactured the tools that those fighting the war needed in order to win. Their efforts should not be denigrated because they were not on the front fighting the enemy. Their service was as necessary as anyone's. Not everyone is fit for combat roles. Ronald Reagan was one of those but he did serve and was a proud member of the U.S. Army.

   Why Mr. Wills wants to leave the reader with this provable and false impression one can only guess, but in the name of fairness, one should give someone credit where it is due, and this Mr. Wills fails to do. Another false impression, Mr. Wills leaves the reader with is that Mr. Reagan was not a man of faith. Recently there have been a number of books showing otherwise, as well has Ronald Prescott Reagan's moving tribute to his father's faith at his funeral.

   For these reasons and many, others this is a bad book.




4. Gary Wills book on Reagan is an even handed portrayal of a great American figure. President Reagan's conservative vision and his strident anti-communist views changed the way America works and changed the way the world looks at us. As a liberal, I often disagreed with his views, his policies and his actions. However, one cannot be an objective viewer of history with giving him his due. He did indeed bring a level of pride and hopefulness about America that had been missing since the early days of the Kennedy presidency. For that, I will be forever grateful to him. Gary Wills book provides a window in to how Ronald Reagan changed from Roosevelt democrat to conservative republican. An excellent book that should belong to anyone's collection of political histories and biographies.



5. I love reading books about Ronald Reagan, whether they are critical or puff pieces, or whatever. Garry Wills biography of Reagan seems to lean heavily on his own personal opinions. Another problem with "Reagan's America" is that the piece is extremely disjointed, meaning that it does not flow nor tackle many of the serious issues with intense research or critical thinking.
   
   Reagan's Hollywood career is filled with irrelevant information about the importance of chastity symbols. Many of Wills's thoughts are incoherent, psycho-babble and does not even closely mirror the other "balanced" accounts of President Reagan. He does not even deal with many of the lasting changes that Reagan had on America or the Republican Party. Wills has virtually no balanced understanding of the significance or importance of the conservative movement or Reagan Revolution in America. It seems also that the author also has an extreme socialist/liberal biased against capitalism and the free market. Basically the cover picture is the best asset of this book. I am not saying that Wills is not intelligent, but if one is honest with themselves and faithful to responsible scholarship they would surmise pretty quickly this is a very badly researched and biased account regardless of their feelings about Reagan.
   
   I would not recommend this account if one is looking for a fair and accurate account of Ronald Reagan. If that is your interest, where you will not get just a "puff" analysis, take a look at Lou Cannon. Cannon is sometimes harsh but usually fair in his analysis of Reagan. He knows more about Reagan than any journalists and he has done the research. His book the "Role of a Lifetime" is an information treasure.

2 comments about Rafiq Hariri and the Fate of Lebanon.

1. 
   
   The murder of Lebanon's Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri is enigmatic and perplexing.
   To probe to the bottom is one thing, but to spread the truthful details of the investigation is another?
   
   Actually the persons who stand to suffer most are his direct family members and kinfolks, and the hundreds of thousands of his Lebanese (and Arab) supporters who looked at the late PM with genuine feelings of hope.
   Hariri was a man full of inspiration and creativity.
   We are hoping against hope for a change in fortunes that the investigation will lead, this time, to the `perpetrator' and to the `instigator'.
   Reading Iskandar's book takes you to the `golden' years in which Lebanon threw away its gruffly shroud to myriads of bright spots kicking off with Beirut.
   A dream relived.



2. While the book is well written, yet it is a baised account by one of the Hariri family closest associates whose livelihood depended on work with Rafic Hariri. This is not an accusation, but of course the author would not mention all the bade side of the Hariri saga and the corruption that imprinted his business dealings, which was revealed in several more objective accounts. Fortune magazine put Hariri's fortune by his admission at 4 billion dollars in 2004; yet when he was murdered in Feb 2005, the same magazine reported that his children inherited 16 billion dollars. One cannot use this book as a research reference for an academic work or an objective portrayal of the man. However, the author's facts about the economy are almost OK.

5 comments about The Unfinished Presidency: Jimmy Carter's Journey Beyond the White House.

1. Regardless of how one feels about Jimmy Carter the fact is that he has become one of the most admired men in the United States and one of the most beloved Americans in the world. He left office after being voted out in a landslide and with some of the worst poll numbers in history. Now, his poll numbers are very high and any time a conservation turns to Carter someone will almost certainly say that they think Carter is the best ex-President we have ever had or the most moral man to have been in the White House in years and years. This turn around occurred in less than twenty years, and that the turn around occurred is a fact not open to question. The real question is; how and why did it happen?

   That's the question Douglas Brinkley attempts to answer with this book. Brinkley basically starts with Carter's 1980 defeat and follows Carter's career for the next twenty years. On this journey the reader will meet Jimmy Carter the Baptist missionary, the Habitat carpenter, the lay physician out to heal the world, and the ex-President who refuses to profit from his former office but is at the same time a tireless fund raiser for his Carter Center. We also get to see the tireless diplomat who is willing to put himself in great personal danger to try and secure a peaceful resolution to conflicts around the world. This is truly a man who takes to heart his faith and the teachings of Jesus Christ. On the other hand we also see a somewhat darker side of the former peanut farmer. We see an ego as big as all outdoors, a tendency to grandstand, a self-righteous zealot, and a serious stubborn streak. The reader will also find a great clue in Carter's post presidency to the failure of his administration. The aforementioned faults of course did not help his presidential efforts but it may well have been his inability to prioritize that lead to his political downfall. It seems that Carter will give small details and events the same attention he gives to massive undertakings without taking into account the real importance of the event. One can easily see how a President with this trait would very quickly become bogged down and accomplish very little.

   Brinkley does an excellent job of telling this remarkable story. He had access to both President and Mrs. Carter along with their papers and also did many interviews with their fellow workers and friends. Interestingly, many of the people who had worked with Carter on some of his projects critiqued some of the draft chapters and pointed out mistakes. Make no mistake, most of these people are Carter intimates but steadfast Republican James Baker is also among those who offered both insights and critiques. The writing style that is found in this book is generally easy to read although the narrative does seem to drag in places. The biggest fault I could find in this book is the printing. I read the paperback version and the printing is tiny. I suppose that in discussing Jimmy Carter, Biblical type print is understandable but it still hurts the eyes. Still, this book is well worth the effort so break out the bifocals and enjoy.




2. Jimmy Carter is usually considered a mediocre president at best, totally incompetent at worst. Nothing could be further from the truth. This book lists his presidential successes and goes on to show how they led to his influential post-presidential activities. We now can see Jimmy Carter for what he truly is, a human rights champion and a shining example to us all.



3. This is a biography of Jimmy Carter from the time he lost the election to Ronald Reagan in 1980 to 1997. Brinkley attempts to show how Carter, though no longer a resident of the White House, took much of the Presidency with him in terms of what interested him and the power he still might wield in having an influence on world affairs. Carter got very involved in trying to help resolve conflicts around the world, from Panama and Haiti to North Korea and Bosnia. So focused on peace (and some might say the ever-elusive Nobel Peace Prize), Carter often could be a fly in the ointment of US policy, driving presidents (especially Clinton) up the wall. Carter is a micromanager, needing to know every detail. He is also a tireless worker, especially for what he perceives to be just causes. He has always put his faith above all other things, and might rank as the most decent public official Washington has seen in a long time, or can expect to see again. Brinkley is totally pro-Carter in all respects, though he is willing to point out how and where Carter got himself into trouble along the way. An interesting book about an interesting man.



4. Only made it thru the first few chapters, but he describes Ford as someone who sent 18 men to their death for political gain. He describes Reagan as an unprincipled and deeply immoral man, and suggests the Cold War was won because Reagan followed Carter's policies. He largely endorses the idea that Reagan's team conspired with Iran to keep the hostages until Carter was out of office. He repeats without disclaimer Carter's claim that he could have won re-election if he had been willing to bomb Iran (apparently, we Americans are a bunch of bloodthirsty idiots who would have supported such an action).
   
   Given Brinkley's unbridled venom for any Republican, it is going to be hard to believe any of the rest of the book.
   
   ---Edit: although I cannot change my star rating to 3, I found Brinkley's fawning reassuring - it meant the duplicitous and arrogant behavior of Carter perhaps unwittingly revealed in the book to be the result of Carter's nature and not biographer bias. If this is the sort of book an unabashed supporter of Carter writes, then one wonders what a truly unbiased account will someday say. Overall, the best of the books on Carter I've read so far - as my own review shows, Carter is difficult to view objectively.



5. I was reminded of Pete Seger's classic song while reading this book. Douglas Brinkley offers a fascinating examination into Jimmy Carter's post-presidential achievements, showing the many reasons why Carter should have long before been considered for a Nobel Peace Prize. The former president has been a tireless promoter of peace around the world, whether it is election-monitoring in Nicaragua, two-track diplomacy between Israel and Palestine, or fighting diseases in sub-Saharan Africa. The man had long been an international symbol of peace, extolling all the positive aspects of Christian goodwill, before finally earning the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002. One is simply left awestruck by the width and breadth of his accomplishments through the Carter Center, Habitat for Humanity and many other organizations he either created or promoted in the 20+ years since he left office.
   
   Brinkley takes Carter up to 1998, a time that offered much hope in finally establishing a two-state solution between Israel and Palestine. The Middle East had long been Carter's most personal interest, having formed a heart-felt friendship with Anwar Sadat during the famous Camp David Accords. I was surprised to learn that it was Carter who made Arafat a player in the Peace Process, by reaching out to him and bringing him to the table when the first Bush administration had virtually ignored teh Palestinian leader. Clinton deserved a lot of credit for the lengthy peace talks between Israel and the Palestine Authority but it was Carter who did much of the groundwork in bringing these talks about.
   
   The chapters revolve around specific achievements and Carter's relationships with the various presidential administrations that followed his. It was interesting to read that Carter established such a close bond with Gerald Ford, who joined him on numerous international projects and even a few domestic projects, although the two often didn't see eye to eye on political matters. Brinkley notes how Carter was never able to break through Reagan's teflon exterior, but had a good working relationship with the Bush administration until the fallout over the Persian Gulf War, which Carter refused to accept. He and Clinton managed to form a good working relationship despite the many differences in their personalities. Clinton stole a number of pages from the Carter playbook, relied on many of his same advisors, but ended up tripping over himself on many occasions because he refused to take Carter's advice.
   
   Many view Carter's administration as a failure, but Brinkley notes the framework that was laid during that time, and how Jimmy Carter followed through on many of the initiatives he set in those four short years. Most impressive are his achievements in world health, spearheading efforts to rid the world of small pox, guineau worm and other maladies that needed his clout to get the money necessary for their eradication. Most important was Carter's political will, which seemed undaunted despite the setback he suffered in losing the 1980 election to his nemesis, Ronald Reagan.
   
   I think anyone with an interest in Jimmy Carter will greatly appreciate this book as it puts his many accomplishments in perspective and illustrates how he earned the respect of many persons across political and international boundaries, even begrudging respect from such persons as George Bush, George Schultz and Henry Kissinger. You may not agree with everything Carter has done, but his integrity is unimpeachable.

3 comments about The President's House: A History.

1. William Seale has put together an excellent historical perspective of the history of the White House, including it's construction, reconstruction, and many renovations. The book also recounts the evolution of Washington, D.C. relative to it's relationship with the White House and it's occupants.

   Along with describing the physical structure and it's many evolutions, Seale has managed to include a significant amount of history relative to the occupants of the White House, including their personal and political lives. This provides the reader with a good feel for life in the White House. Additionally, most will learn a significant amount about presidents who we simply know by name but not much else.

   Overall, I would highly recommend this book to those most interested in american history. Although it includes two volumes, the book is such an interesting read that it is hard to put it down.




2. Often, history is written in broad sweep narratives that can be static and boring to the reader. Although William Seale wrote more than 1,000 pages on the history of the White House, you can be assured that there is nothing static or boring about these volumes. He displays an understanding of the fact that history is about the human drama of real people facing real predicaments, and it's poignance is found in how they react to those predicaments.

   Whereas a history book will tell you that the British burned the White House in 1814, Seale tells us what was happening on the DAY the British marched into town. The hundred sentry guards who were supposed to defend the White House were gone, and they could easily have taken on the battalion of 150 British soldiers who marched in the mud down Pennsylvania Avenue, walked around the White House like tourists, ate Dolley Madison's dinner, and then torched the White House with precision. Then there is the even more dramatic moment when Lincoln looked out across the Potomac into Virginia to see the flags of the Confederacy flying, knowing that soon the capital would be surrounded if Maryland seceded from the Union.

   The book is a perfect match of comedy and drama with stories ranging from the infestation of rats in the basement to a presidential love story that rivals "The American President," and in places describes a house that you would never imagine to be destined as the symbol of the most powerful nation on earth.




3. It has been a while since I read it, so this will be short, but I can tell you that I loved this work. In fact, I read it twice.
   
   Seale takes you through the origins and changes in the house and the property, which is interesting enough to me. But he also takes you, with great detail, through the families and events that occupied and occurred in the President's House. You get a real sense of what life was like there, and how history was made. It is a very interesting story both from a historical house perspective, and a human perspective. I only wish I had bought the leather bound edition.

1 comments about Jefferson and Science.

1. Thomas Jefferson is a very revered and well known figure in American history. The book Jefferson and Science further this idea by elaborating on the side of Jefferson many readers will not be aware of. The style of writing and the authority with which the Smithsonian historian, Silvio Bedini, writes makes for a one-hundred seven page brief but enlightening exploration into Jefferson and his involvement and impact upon the sciences. Readability, verifiability, and a clear and concise style make this book an excellent choice though Bedini does lack some of the higher level connections found in other biographies.
   
   To summarize, Bedini talks in some of his short three to twelve page chapters about each of the areas of science (Surveying, Meteorology, Astronomy, Ethnology, Health and Medicine, Botany, Horology, and Agriculture) Jefferson made contributions or showed a keen interest in. The other chapters talk about a broad contribution or area of Jefferson' life that relate to science (The American Philosophical Society, Science in Europe, Notes on the State of Virginia, Health and Medicine, Exploration and Discovery, Invention, and The University of Virginia). Each of the chapters is relatively factual though Bedini is inclined to belabor a chapter with unnecessary amounts of specific details.
   
   Due to Jefferson's notoriety the author does not feel inclined to make a case for this by expounding upon Jefferson's many and varied accomplishments thereby saving the reader repetitious and boring details. Instead this presupposition allows Bedini to focus and give credit to Jefferson where many historians and typical people fail to appreciate Jefferson. Once a reader enters the book they will find that it is not quite like other biographies written about Thomas Jefferson. No birth date or death date will can be found and there is very little written specifically about his presidency or the Declaration of Independence. The primary emphasis of the book is the side of Thomas Jefferson relating to science, a side not often seen. Bedini conveys to readers each of the aspects of science Jefferson took an interest in. Many of the chapters are devoted solely to Jefferson's involvement in a particular field of science. This gives the book a highly organized and clear structure.
   
   However, while Bedini does an excellent job presenting the details of Jefferson's interest and involvement in science, he fails to give an adequate amount of abstraction to Jefferson's involvement in the sciences. For example, the introduction of the book should clearly explain what information will be conveyed and why this information is important. A lacking connection is found between Jefferson's interest in science and its importance. Presumably Jefferson's interest in science helps promote scientific advancement with posterity in mind. This connection is made quite obvious when Bedini speaks about Jefferson's role in the establishment of the University of Virginia; yet elsewhere it appears quite obfuscated. The lacking amount of abstraction thus leaves the reader at the end of the book full of facts but slightly bewildered with how to go about processing these facts. This is a crucial point and Bedini fails to make it. The information simply appears to be tightly clumped into many ultimately disjoint chapters.
   
   The author, it seems, wrote the book with a student audience in mind. In terms of readability this naturally places him into a disadvantageous spot. Often students are compelled to read a book, they are not given a choice. Therefore a student is more likely to put a book down and stop reading if they find it disinteresting simply because they were quite likely never interested from the beginning. By dividing the book into short readable chapters Bedini lifts much of the burden from a student's shoulders. He makes it easier for a student to actually read the entirety of the book. A student always either explicitly or implicitly appreciates this and the author enjoys the benefit of a larger audience.
   
   Bedini appears to have the impression Jefferson was important for not only promoting science but also for a vast number of specific contributions. The reader, at the end of this book, should feel in a likewise manner. Unfortunately, it is quite likely a reader will feel otherwise. This is due to the fact that while Bedini points out countless inventions and improvements Jefferson gave to science most appear to have had little impact. For example, Bedini dedicates several pages to a particular plowing moldboard that Jefferson invented. However, towards the end of the chapter the author notes "Although the moldboard received wide acknowledgement, it did not achieve the universal adoption that had been hoped for it because it was almost immediately supplanted by an all-iron plow developed in the same period." Thus, the reader will recognize that particular invention as having little impact and will wonder why the past few pages were dedicated to such a matter. This seems to be the general trend of Jefferson's inventions.
   
   This pattern promotes the appearance of Bedini having a bias towards Jefferson. Thus, the appearance of a bias naturally makes the information a little less reliable. Fortunately his information is primarily factual and verifiable thus leaving only small room for bias. Working further in Bedini's favor, with respect to a perceived bias, is brief section at the end of the book where Bedini provides balance to the book by criticizing some of Jefferson's scientific opinions and conclusions. However even this is done in an almost apologetic manner thus still leaving the reader with the notion that Bedini holds a slight bias towards Jefferson.
   
   Though Jefferson and Science fails to make key connections that fully convey and justify the author's feelings and opinions, it is nonetheless a book worthy of the casually interested or even ardent Jefferson enthusiast. The brevity, organization, and short chapter structure will allow the casually interested reader to continue reading. At the same time the ardent Jefferson enthusiast will appreciate the abundance of facts, sources, and the authority of the author. After reading this book a reader will find that they have been exposed to an unexpected but delightful side of Jefferson they would not have otherwise understood.

5 comments about The Inner World of Abraham Lincoln.

1. The organization of this book is not presented in a chronological time scale as most books are. Instead, the author breaks up facets of Lincoln's emotions and personality traits, and then takes us through his whole life, examining the influence of each facet. Only thinking in this manner do I clearly imagine myself in his shoes, feeling what he felt, and in awe of the strength required to break the rebellion, and provide a land where each man's hand could feed that own man's face.



2. I have been studying Abraham Lincoln for nearly 40 years. Burlingame is inaccurate in many of his statements about Lincoln and Mary Lincoln in particular and does not present all of the information about both of them. Possibly his most faulty act is using William Herndon's information about Lincoln and Mary Lincoln. Herndon and Mary Lincoln hated each other. After Lincoln passed away, Herndon may have very well said things about Lincoln and her to hurt, degrade and disgrace Mary Lincoln. Herndon is NOT to be trusted to be accurate much of the time. Other very poor Lincoln authors are Weik, Sandburg, Gore Vidal, Lerone Bennett, Jr., Thomas DiLorenzo, Vincent Harding and Barbara Fields. Their accuracy, interpretations and images are usually wrong and at times even bizarre. If you want to read professionally researched, much more accurate material about Lincoln, read books by David Herbert Donald, Stephen Oates, Frank Williams, Mark Neely, Jr., Edward Steers, Jr. and Allen Guelzo.



3. One of the finest Lincoln scholars provides an excellent examination of Lincoln's many-faceted personality. Burlingame consulted a wide variety of information sources and used them well. His thoroughly documents his narrative.



4. A very good read, focusing on Lincoln's depression and how it affected his life and presidency. Being a clinical psychologist who utilizes CBT for the treatment of depression, it was a bit too psychodynamic for my taste, however.



5. Mr. Burlingame's book takes us where many scholars of Lincoln hesitate to go: into the inner-workings of strained marriage, the grief over the loss of two sons and the heavy load of a presidency at war. I found it a facinating read, but one to be taken in small bites, as the reality of the grief and dispair of Abraham and Mary were etched in every page. I felt their pain and sacrifice of real history as it was being made.

2 comments about Affair of Honor: Woodrow Wilson and the Occupation of Veracruz.

1. Very well written book about an incident in American history that the American Government would rather forget. The book is savage in its accessment of Wilson and the reasons that America chose to interfere in the affairs of another country.



2. During the Mexican Revolution, Woodrow Wilson needed a pretext to seize the Mexican port of Veracruz from the forces of the dictator Huerta. His basic intentions was to prevent the port from supplying Huerta with arms for his fight with the rebels. In deciding to intervene, he uses the detainment of American sailors for one hour as the justification. Events then slide out of control with the capture of Veracruz. Twenty US soldiers and hundreds of Mexican citizens become the victims of Wilson's policy. This book portrays Wilson negatively, because his policy was not justified. Mexicans remember this event more than the earlier wars with the United States. Although Wilson may have been an idealist, the portrait in the book is of a self righteous man, not capable of understanding another viewpoint. Accounts in the book show the American occupation as being progressive and in the best interests of the people of Veracruz. Wilson returned the port to the rebels after nine months.

   This is a nice read for a little known chapter in American and Mexican history. People would be wise to read it, especially in light of the use of American forces worldwide.

5 comments about The Bushes: Portrait of a Dynasty.

1. Biographies of prominent individuals or families are generally researched studies that give us a deeper look into the subjects. But this tale of the Bush family is a flawed skimming of all the questions that ought to be explored. We get little in the way of serious personal portrait of family individuals and especially the two President Bushes. Instead a sugarcoated story that excuses all their bad behavior and poor decisions almost without exception is served up in a manner designed, but failing, to evoke admiration. It reminds one of those complimentary biographies that CEOs pay to have written. It further always assumes that the reader will agree with the Bushes political actions leading you to conclude that no serious scholarship was intended by this work. The only accurate description would be that it is shallow, like the Bushes.



2. Peter and Rochelle Schweizer, the authors of The Bushes: Portrait of a Dynasty, claim to have relied mainly on interviews with friends and family members of George W. and George H. W. Bush for their information. The authors' politics apparently leans to the right, judging from the recent release of a new book by Schweizer about the hypocrisy of liberals. And yet, The Bushes: Portrait of a Dynasty, while hardly a brutal attack on the family, does not leave the reader with a very positive view of the Bushes.
   
   George H. W. comes across as an ambitious man who schmoozed his way into jobs, and who worked hard, but who had no big goals he wanted to accomplish. He famously acknowledged that he lacked "the vision thing." He seemed to be absent as a father, but that wasn't unusual in those days. Still, for a man who claimed to prize loyalty and family above all, it was unforgivable for him to miss George W.'s graduation from Yale. His father's absence at the ceremony was a big disappointment to George W., according to this book, so it seems even stranger that he too would miss his own daughters' graduations.
   
   George W., in this book, comes across as a rude, foul-mouthed, ruthless politician who learned the family business while acting the heavy during his father's administration. He also learned that the press was the enemy and that his father wasn't tough enough. His behavior while he was drinking was irresponsible, but after he stopped drinking and found religion, he didn't seem to be any more pleasant to be around. He still mocked friends as well as perceived enemies and was strident about his religious beliefs.
   
   I'll admit that I skipped most of the parts about the generations before George H. W., but the sections on the two presidents, plus Jeb and the other brothers, make up for the boring spots. The women are glossed over, not because of the authors' bias, but because women are only for support in this family. Barbara burst out of that role and upstaged her husband, but it is unlikely that Laura will do anything like that. And the lone sister, Doro, makes no mark at all.
   
   Portrait of a Dynasty is an enjoyable read, and I have only one quibble. There is too much repitition. In one paragraph, Laura is described first as "shy," then as "reluctant,", and finally as "shy and reluctant." Maureen Dowd's on-again, off-again e-mail correspondence with George H. W. is mentioned several times. This sort of thing happens throughout the book. Other than that, I recommend the book to Bush fans and non-fans alike.



3. Schweizer continues to flog his breathless admiration of everyone wealthy, Republican and corrupt.
   
   Schweizer utterly fails to address the Bushes' multifarious connections to both Organized Crime and to the Nazi Party. After all, when Schweizer refers to a "company headed by Prescott Bush", he neglects to address the fact that that company was the Union Banking Corporation which invested in Nazi industrialization and profited from slave labor at Auschwitz. (See John Loftus's books, if you doubt this.)
   
   And, when he says that Prescott Bush was defeated because of smears of being "for" birth control, Schweizer fails to note that the Senator was a charter member of the International Eugenics League - a group that does NOT promote "birth control" but one that, rather, promotes the sterilization of the illegal, the immoral, the disadvantaged, the poor, the needy and the retarded, and practically every other social group that was deemed unfit for inclusion in the Bushes' "polite society".



4. I generally read more on business and technology but picked up a copy of this book just to get an idea of Bush's background.
   
   I agree with one of the reviewers that it's hard to write an unbiased book on such a political topic. The book is certainly pro-Bush but gives a glimpse into the generations of the political dynasty.
   
   Two key takeaways from the book:
   * Oil is certainly in the family, perhaps the reason why the President focuses on energy as a means of National Security.
   * The power of the Yale Cosa Nostra, and the Skull and Bones Society...repeated in several chapters



5. Very well-done and ambitiously-scoped biography of the Bush family, as well as the Walkers they intermarried with a few generations back to form what we know as the Bush `dynasty' today (although the Bushes themselves hate that word). Not biased for or against the family either way, it manages to be very thorough and completely devoid of political judgment, yet full of valuable personal and political detail from an historical point of view.
   
   It's always difficult for biographers to decide exactly where to begin, but to best tell the story of the Bushes they began four generations back, with Samuel Prescott Bush, who was George Sr's grandfather and the son of a clergyman. There are many, many branches of the Bush family tree, but the Schweizers concentrate, naturally, on the direct line of Bushes who ended up in American politics. I value the personal details most of all, since I always find those the most interesting. For instance, the Bush men don't inherit the bulk of their wealth (and their wealth is not as extensive as most probably think). Rather, each is expected to make his own way, which is why they all ended up in different industries: manufacturing, railroads, steel, oil, etc. They do, of course, have the advantage of name and connections and make full use of that; they just don't inherit a big pot of money when they turn a certain age.
   
   I really enjoyed the in-depth look of the very different personalities of the Bushes, particularly the reserved George Sr., the aggressive, focused W., and the ambitious, conflicted Jeb, as well as some of the Bush women - Dottie (George Sr's mother), Barbara, and Laura. One of the most poignant details, to me, was the story of how Barbara Bush ended up with the snowy white hair everyone lambasted her for because she looked more like George's mother than his wife. Apparently they had a daughter, Robin, who was born a few years after W. While still a toddler she was diagnosed with advanced leukemia, and from diagnosis to death she lived about eight months - never improving at all, just dying a slow and painful death. It was over those eight months of watching her daughter die that Barbara's hair turned from dark auburn to completely white. When George began his first forays into politics she did heed the advice of PR people and tried to color it, but the dye wouldn't take and ended up running down her face and neck, at which point she stopped trying. It must have felt to her like a badge and constant reminder of the terrible pain she endured during that time as a young mother. Very sad.
   
   The husband-and-wife team of Peter and Rochelle Schweizer do an excellent job of bringing this very large and tightly-knit family to life, not an easy to thing to do given the size of the family and their reticence at talking very much about themselves. As biographies go it's one of the better ones I've read.

2 comments about The Jeffersonian Persuasion: Evolution of a Party Ideology.

1. Although this work was officially written by Lance Banning, there is no mistake that it is an outgrowth of the theories of J.G.A. Pocock. Essentially, Banning tries to make the case that the Jeffersonian Republicans were the American version of Bolingbroke's "Country Party." Moreover, he tries to demonstrate how the party advocated the classical republican values of "civic humanism." Ultimately, the book falls flat on its face. Anyone acquanted with Jefferson, as well as his party, should be able to see right through Banning's account. Although there certainly were classical republican elements in their thought, these were only secondary and complimentary to the libertarian theories of natural rights and individualism. A more accurate (although still deeply flawed) account is Joyce Appleby's work "Capitalism and a New Social Order:The Republican Vision of the 1790's."



2. Robert Shalhope in his John Taylor of Caroline:Pastoral Republican talks about the tendency of historians to assert a "single and substantial 'reality' in the period they are studying and then judging individuals...by this standard" (Shalhope, p.8) He might well have added that as readers we tend to do the same thing. Mr. Murphy's review below is a good example of this. For some reason, many people want to beatify certain individuals and trends in our early history and then judge histories of that period by how well they cleave to that reader's historical construction. The best example of this is the way that readers or historians react to Alexander Hamilton.
   The problem with this tendency is that it distorts our reading of the history of that period. Here is a thought. I suggest that few people would be arrogant enough to claim that they had a standard by which the present could be judged. There are more things on heaven and earth than are dreamed of in your philosophies and so on. Well here is the Taylor axiom: "If it doesn't work for the present, it doesn't work for the past".
   This is only to claim that we need to start seeing our past as not one reality but many different realities that were experienced by many different types of people. People who were liberal, radical, conservative, Whigs, rational and religious all at the same time. Otherwise, we cheapen them in the name of our pet ideas.
   A case in point. Banning's book while strongly influenced by Pocock's work can be equally said to be as strongly influenced by Bailyn, Wood, Maier,Cunningham, Peterson, Foner and Ketcham. To claim that Banning is just channeling Pocock is to not see Banning through your ideological forest.
   Furthermore to claim, that anyone who "really" knows his Jefferson will see through Banning's argument is a subtle ad hominem. I would appreciate actual quotes or some sort of evidence to back up such a claim. In any case, I am evidently not as knowledgeable as Mr. Murphy in that I am impressed by what Prof. Banning has to offer us.
   Banning's thesis is that the Real Whig (or the "country" ideology) was initially useful to the Revolutionary situation because it helped them to conceptualize and justify their opposition to British policy as a unwilling protest against the corruption of the British regime.
   But later these same arguments became useful to the rising opposition to the Hamiltonian economic program. The arguments proved even more useful in delineating different apporachs to foreigh affairs and central to the fight against the Alien and Sedition Acts.
   Part of the reason the Country ideology fit the Jeffersonian's purposes so well is that their political situation was analogous to that of the Country party. Like Bolinbroke in his struggle with Walpole, John Taylor read the rising opposition not as the beginnings of a "party" (a dirty work for at least another 30 years) but as the reaction of "patriots" who were fighting against degeneracy and ministerial influence peddling (Banning, p. 200). Furthermore the Jeffersonians were initially a minority in Congress. "By nature, criticisim of corruption was a weapon of minorities, who...claim that influence had perverted the expression of the people's will in order to claim that they spoke for the majority" (Banning, p.74).
   Overall, I find Banning's argument for the influence of the Country ideology on the Jeffersonians to be very persuasive.
   Are his arguments flawless? Heck, no. On pp. 138-9, Banning makes an argument that Hamilton "may" have been influenced by a reading of Hume and certain "Court" replies to the Country arguments. By the next page, that "may have been" has become a definite influence. I like to call this particular fault "arguing from wishful evidence". But apart from a few faux pas like that, Banning comes across as learned and judicious.
   This book is well worth the early American history reader's time to explore. And it should also be noted that Banning has published a companion volumn called Liberty and Order which contains many of the original writings that he refers to throughout his book. This brings me to one point in which I am probably in complete agreement with Mr. Murphy. As good as it is to read about these wacky guys and gals, it is even better to read their own writings. It's our history, people. We should own it.